The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The loose end

Posted on June 21, 2019 by

Right then. Our 2019 crowdfunder is officially over (the page is actually still live at the moment because several readers have asked it be kept open until the weekend so they can make their own donations, but it’ll be finally closed down on Sunday night).

And good heavens.

The main page alone narrowly beat last year’s all-sources total (ie including donations made via other routes like direct bank transfers) by nearly £600, and the actual final figure for 2019 [EDIT: updated 24 June] is, jawdroppingly, this much:



That’s almost £17,000 above the previous all-time record, despite the total deadness of the Scottish politics scene for the last two years and my personal determined efforts at alienating certain sections of the Yes movement at inopportune moments.

Once again, your support leaves us lost for adequate words, and since inadequate words are no use to anybody we’ll leave it there.

So the Wings finances are in a healthy state. Irrespective of what you’re about to read below, we have plenty cash to sustain us for the next 12 months and achieve all the goals set out in the fundraiser.

(We can also afford the frankly inflation-busting pay-rises that myself and our itinerant crayonsmith Chris Cairns are getting this time round, because the last couple of years have to be honest been quite a trial one way and another.)

But there’s a giant elephant in the room that needs to be dealt with now before we can wrap this whole business up for another year and get back to proper work, and the elephant was identified in this paragraph on the fundraiser page:

My defamation lawsuit against former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale is not yet a done deal. There are valid and viable grounds for an appeal against the sheriff’s decision and we need to decide quite soon whether to file one or not.

For hopefully obvious reasons we won’t be discussing the merits or otherwise of the judgement, or the prospects of success for any appeal, in detail. While we’ve taken legal advice on the latter, we can’t discuss it here.

(Because if our lawyer said “You’re 95% sure of victory” it might be interpreted by the court as arrogant presumptuousness – which judges tend not to like – and if they said “You’ve only got a 10% chance” that would obviously be thrown in our faces by the other side’s lawyers. SPOILER: the actual figure is in between those two.)

So what we’re going to talk about is the bare financial reality.

The sheriff, unusually, did not make an order for costs. A hearing is now scheduled to decide that, the two parties having failed to reach agreement between themselves. However it’s normally the case that the winning party – Dugdale – can expect to be awarded the bulk of their legal expenses.

(Though not always. Alert readers may recall the case of one A. Carmichael.)

You need to know what’s at stake to decide what we do next, so here goes.

[Please note that due to the way the law works, almost all of the figures given below are approximate to some degree or another, and/or subject to alteration.]

– Dugdale is seeking costs of around £100,000. (Made up of £77,000 in itemised expenses plus an unspecified “uplift” likely to be in the very rough region of 30%.) We’ll challenge this figure at the hearing and seek to have it reduced, since we believe it to be excessive in several respects, but there’s no guarantee of success and it could even go up.

– we’ve currently spent somewhere in the region of £55,000 on our own legal representation (that’s the full and final bill, except for the relatively small sums that’ll be incurred at the costs hearing).

– the cost of an unsuccessful appeal is likely to be somewhere very roughly in the general ballpark of £50,000 (that’s including the expenses of both sides).

What this means is that were we to lose the appeal, it would probably increase the total amount we had to pay by perhaps 50%, from around £100K to around £150K. (ie the settlement to Dugdale plus the costs of the appeal.)

On the other hand if we were to WIN an appeal, we’d have to pay Dugdale’s lawyers nothing (probably – see Carmichael) and could also reasonably expect to recover a large part of the £55K we’ve paid our own legal team. That would effectively put up to £150,000 extra into the Wings Fighting Fund, compared to if we don’t appeal.

Expressed in crude terms, what this means is that an appeal would risk £50,000 to potentially save £150,000. Or in summary:

 – don’t appeal: pay up to £100,000

 – appeal and win: pay £0, recover up to £55,000

 – appeal and lose: pay up to £150,000

And since that’s essentially your money, we don’t believe it’s a decision that should be taken without soliciting your feelings on the matter.

Below is a poll. It won’t in itself be the total be-all and end-all of the decision because we also have to factor in our legal advice (and website polls can be sabotaged), but it’ll be considered along with the balance of your comments on this post.

Should we appeal the sheriff's judgement in the Kezia Dugdale case?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

So let us know what you think, and we’ll answer any questions that we’re able to. (The views of donors, should they make themselves known, will be given considerably more weight than those who didn’t contribute financially – it’s their cash – but everyone’s opinions are sought.)

One way or another, let’s get this wrapped up.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 21 06 19 14:56

    The loose end | speymouth

422 to “The loose end”

  1. Wulls says:

    If appealing is viable go for it.
    I for one will shove another ton in.

  2. Colin says:

    I’d trust your readership to chip (again) in a bit extra in the event that an appeal is lost. I would.

  3. Proud Cybernat says:

    The ruling elite in this country need to learn the lesson that the ‘poor’ can now afford lawyers and take them to task. This ‘verdict’ was a complete travesty of justice, imo. This was a defamation case. You WERE defamed by Dugdale. There’s no dispute about that. And YET the judge expects YOU to pay HER.

    Utterly beyond belief, imo.

    Aye–the law really can be an ass sometimes. But it’s not too late for it to redeem itself.

    Make it so, Rev.

  4. David Mooney says:

    It’s a no brainer for me – appeal.

    Frankly I felt the Sheriff fudged the verdict in the first place. To say that you were defamed but then say it was fair comment by Dugdale does not make sense to me there is no logic to it.

  5. Ruglonian says:

    Donor – Yes, appeal!

  6. Vikki Deas says:

    Go for it I don’t think that you were in the wrong. Keep on keeping on.

  7. Chris Darroch says:

    I would be willing to contribute more to take on the risk of appeal.

    It is vital that we attempt to strike back in their pockets, if possible, and for the moral victory.

    We might wonder whether this case is seen as an opportunity to defund and deflect Wings Over Scotland (if we were acting as conspiracy theorists) but I feel that this typically open and respectful consultation will certainly encourage me to contribute.

    And, in any case, there is no way on earth that, even the relatively or absolutely non contributory part of this community, wouldn’t act if they saw Wings in financial trouble.

  8. Tom Anderson says:

    I donated and would chip in again if you lost go for it

  9. Ann Fuller says:

    I donated and am happy for you to appeal.

  10. Graeme Hampton says:

    If you can wait for the costs hearing then do.

    If costs are split a la Carmichael smile and walk away.

    If the bulk or all costs go in favour of Kez then appeal because she lost the fundamental point on defamation and justice has to figure in somewhere.

  11. Arbroath1320 says:

    Unfortunately I was not in a position to make a donation this year due to other financial commitments so do not feel it would be right, or proper for me to vote. That said I will say that if I were to vote I think I’d be voting for the appeal. I can not believe a Sheriff can openly state that she DID defame you but at the same time SHE wins the court case cue brain in a spin!

  12. Chris Darroch says:

    I also feel that this is an important case in the general legal sense.

    It seems that the judgment is allowing defamation so long as the defamer thought they were being truthful.

    This seems like a potentially huge legal issue.

    For all the suspicion we have that they weight of the Establishment is against us, perhaps due to the combination (rather than conscious collusion) of individual personal gravities.

    If this judge has been swayed to confect a judgement based on tortured logic then this is more important to challenge than anything Dugdale said.

  13. johnj says:

    Another fundraiser for the appeal, if lost, would get a donation from me.

  14. bobajock says:

    The decision was bizarre.

    Appeal … more will go in from me.

  15. David Wardrope says:

    For what little I chip in I’ve voted for appeal, but I would opine that you needn’t be under any obligation to go with the final results if you don’t think any possible repercussions are worth your time or infringe on your privacy (or sanity).

  16. SilverDarling says:

    I would donate more for an appeal but I am happy for you to go ahead with WoS donations if you feel the risk is worth it.

    Look at how that ‘victory’ for Dugdale has enhanced her standing with the MSM. How she got a cushy job out of it all the while getting away with defaming someone. Life isn’t fair and sometimes you have to make a stand.

  17. Liz g says:

    Can you say a bit about the potential stress and distraction from the Indy campaign on you?
    It could not have been easy in that courtroom, and to face it all again must be daunting!

  18. Peter Brunskill says:

    Yes appeal. As at the moment everyone really thinks she won (including Kezia) when it was really a victory for nobody. Although the Judge decided on the main question you were not homophobic this does not appear to be widely understood. You need clarity and that’s only possible by appealing.

  19. Capella says:

    I say appeal. I don’t accept that defamation can be “fair comment”. If this stands then anyone can be defamed and the law just shrugs and says it’s OK.

    Another thing is the standard of public debate that people like Kezia Dugdale harp on about. She has a newspaper column and a platform in Parliament and in the media to spread her defamation far and wide. To attack private citizens for nothing more than expressing their views in public is unacceptable.

    If you weigh up the situation and want to appeal then I will certainly chip in again to support it.

  20. Jo Macdonald says:

    Gambling odds are favourable
    Morally it’s imperative

  21. Ross says:

    Is Dugdale assumed as the winner for legal costs?

    I’m confused. I thought the judgement was that you won and she didn’t need to pay you damages.

  22. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Rev: Appeal, it’s a no-brainer

    Noli Illegettimi Carborundum. (I hope I spelt that correctly).

  23. Trunbulldrier says:

    Hey Stu, TBH I was unhappy with the verdict. I don’t get how you can be defamed, but it’s ok.. The fact that you’re being persued for costs adds to the insult here.

    As a donor, I’d say appeal and would chip in again if necessary..

    Good luck in whatever you decide.

  24. Garry Henderson says:

    Appeal, definitely can’t find you to have been defamed and then you have to pay costs!

    She used a tabloid and the parliament to defame you and shouldn’t be getting away with it.

  25. Athanasius says:

    If you appeal and lose, I’ll put my hand in my pocket. I’m physically sick of hearing screams of “homophobe”, “racist”, “bigot” and all the rest because somebody doesn’t see things the left’s way.

  26. Brotyboy says:

    I’m for going ahead with the appeal Rev, those are good odds. I doned.

  27. AuldReekieJim says:

    Go for it. Happy to donate again.

  28. A C Bruce says:

    You were found not to be a homophobe and her article was untrue and defamatory. The “fair comment” decision, however, sticks in my craw and, to be frank, puzzles me.

    I would like to see the decision appealed to have this clarified. I’m aware that nothing is certain in law and that there is a possibility of losing but I’m willing to risk it.

    Ultimately, it’s your decision but you have my support whatever you decide to do. I would be willing to contribute financially if it was needed.

  29. Fairliered says:

    Justice and democracy needs you to appeal.

  30. Antonia says:

    Donor (possibly twice by mistake!). I say appeal and I, like others, am prepared to chip in again.

  31. Marion Scott says:

    Have donated and would again if necessary. Please appeal and get this put to bed with a fairer result. The sheriff tried to please everybody last time which rebounded badly on you and was unjustly lenient to Ms Dugdale.

  32. Inverclyder says:

    Another fundraiser if required.

  33. Morag says:

    God, Stu, I don’t know. I’ve been here, by the way. (Don’t ask, it was a business thing.) I showed my soon-to-be business partner an algorithm that demonstrated that there was a decent chance of a win if we pressed ahead, but that if he threw in the towel (which he was minded to do because he over-reacted to his lawyers doing the caution and warning talk) he’d be making the worst possible outcome a certainty.

    I persuaded him, we pressed on, and we ended up with a compromise sort of win that we could live with. And I got pretty favourable partnership terms for basically saving the business with that algorithm.

    This one? I don’t know which way to jump, because there are two probability figures I don’t have and which you’re not about to publicise. One, obviously, is your lawyers’ estimate of your prospects of winning an appeal. The other is the actual likelihood of your really being stuck with as much as £100,000 if you don’t appeal.

    My gut feeling is go for it, but I’ve been reading maybe way too much about the most outrageous miscarriages of justice recently (many in Scotland) and the high-handed behaviour of judges who seem simply to decide who is the respectable party and who isn’t and interpret all the evidence to favour the “respectable” one. (Nearly always the police and the COPF department in criminal cases, of course.)

    In this one I believe you have moral right on your side, but that your opponent – being a unionist, Labour, and an (ex) MSP, also a woman and gay and therefore you’re so privileged against her as a heterosexual man and a transphobe to boot – is in the “respectable” seat. After what happened last time I think my money would go on a repeat performance, due to the need to support the respectable party against the maverick outer darkness party.

    Part of me wants to hang on to what Wings has and not risk any more of it. The other part of me wants to go for it, because YOU’RE NOT A HOMOPHOBE, DAMMIT, and that bloody woman used her position and influence to call you that in public out of sheer personal spite.

    So I’ve thought about it now, as I was typing this, and I’ve realised I need to factor in my perception that indyref2 is not imminent given Nicola’s shilly-shallying carrot-always-out-of-reach behaviour. In that case, we should risk the money, because what else are we going to do with it?

    And if I’m wrong and indyref2 happens within a year, I’ll be so bloody overjoyed and so will everybody else that we’ll make do with what we have and find some more and please God that happens.

    Go for it.

  34. Gordon Kyle says:

    If a new fund raiser is required I would gladly donate again and I am sure I would not be alone.The verdict left many confused and the judges comments seemed at odds with the verdict a matter that needs challenged for clarity. Good hunting

  35. Alexander Wallace says:

    Doner Appeal

  36. John says:

    I say don’t appeal as you are appealing against the state. I fear they will use the opportunity to financially ruin you regardless of the merits of your case. You are up against a cable of liars and cheats. Remember the Chagos islanders. After they won in every court the state just said fuck you we own you.

  37. Alexander Wallace says:

    Learn to spell Alex Sorry Donar appeal

  38. Airchie says:

    It’s a tough one tbh. We have the moral victory against Dugdale and part of me feels we should keep what cash we have left for getting the wee blue books out prior to the next vote.

    On the other hand, a moral victory feels hollow knowing we’re having to cough up for her expenses.

    Would we be able to bring a completely separate case against Westminster challenging whether they have the authority to unilaterally block another indy vote? That seems more pressing than anything to do with Dugdale tbh.

  39. On sheer point of principle, I wouldn’t let her away with it.

    I’m prepared to contribute towards your legal expenses.

    Go for it!

  40. Travis says:

    This is a tricky one. Appealing and losing wipes out a huge amount from the fundraiser.

    It’s a pretty big gamble, having £170k cut down to £20k would be a brutal punch in the gut.

  41. mick mclaughlan says:

    I have donated roughly £450.00 since 2014 Stu £50 this time. you should appeal, I will chuck another £50 nearer the time, The way Dugdale has been feted by the media even some SNP politicians makes my blood boil.
    Your dedication to facts ( shown again today re MP Field stooshy) is a fucking shinning beacon of wondrous light in these dark times.
    ps, loving the sisterhood of beardy woke bro meltdown is a thing to behold. I thank you.


  42. One_Scot says:

    I don’t care what it costs, she was wrong and I will give the shirt off my back to have the right to say so.

    You could have a fund raiser every week and each time I will always contribute.

  43. Gerard Kelly says:

    I donated a modest sum to your annual appeal however I’d be willing to quadruple that if it came to the situation you lost a court verdict thay could give you catastrophic costs.
    To paraphrase Yoon loon George Galloway, “This isn’t Alice in Wonderland, Judges don’t get to decide what words mean.
    Good luck whatever way you decide to approach it.

  44. Normski says:

    As long as the solicitor thinks it has a realistic chance, appeal. If the worst comes to the worst, I’m sure most of us can find another £10 or £20 quid to offset the cost of a loss.

  45. benarmine says:

    You were defamed and she got away with it on spurious grounds. That now clouded area of law should be tested.

  46. Astonished says:

    ++++ Urgent Newsflash++++

    Could ALL newsagents put the daily record,daily mail and daily express on THE BOTTOM SHELF ONLY.

    So Britnats can practice kneeling.

    P.S. I donated : appeal. ( will donate again)

  47. Why not start a new crowdfunding appeal just for the appeal. I would put money in again. I voted for appeal

  48. Helena Brown says:

    To whom do you appeal to? I trust that it goes to a higher court. This verdict was a disgrace but I smell plotting going on here. If it goes to the same court I do. Not expect a change if it goes higher then you may win. Only you and your lawyer will have any inkling but my gut instinct is to go for it. I know we will help because we need to see justice me of in this country regardless of who we are otherwise there is going to be anarchy. What you got in that court wasn’t justice, the man should hang his head in shame because it wasn’t clever.

  49. Essexexile says:

    I’ll not give an opinion yes/ no on whether to appeal as I believe others to be more worthy.
    But, a) it might be best to consider the figures in terms of number of wee blue books, and b) Dugdale is a rapidly fading star and an appeal keeps her celebrity status going. Already can’t avoid her name and mugshot everytime you Google WoS. And c) I think it’s fair to say you beat Dugdale but lost out to the establishment, and the establishment is still very much in place.
    Anyway, just thoughts.

  50. ElGordo says:

    IF decision on costs is unfavourable
    AND there is a 75% probability of success on appeal
    THEN separate 25k appeal fundraiser

  51. Martin says:

    I would like to have “ignorance is not a defence under law” reinstated and frankly the misreporting of the outcome of this case boils my blood. I was hoping you would appeal when I donated so I can reassure you on the “use of donated funds” front.

  52. One_Scot says:

    Ask yourself this question, if we walk away from this what message does that send?

    People have fought and died to defend Scotland’s cause and the rights of Scotland and our people, if I can’t take that fighting spirit forward, then what do I have.

  53. galamcennalath says:

    This is my understanding … Dugdale cast aspersions on the Rev Stu’s good character, the court agreed, but the court said she didn’t understand what she had done. This may be legally correct – I’m no lawyer. However, why does the Rev Stu have to pay the bulk of the costs? Dugdale did not win, she just avoided losing.

    Justice has not been done. Appeal.

  54. Sarah says:

    The law is NOT about justice. You are putting your life in the hands of someone else – you are not in control. This case is so much a matter of interpretation that the appeal judges could decide that your joke shows you as homophobic – there is no telling.

    So given that you can always point to the fact that the judge DID state that KD defamed you, so you could sue anyone who says different, my vote is to let it lie – do not appeal.

    You will sleep a lot easier and be able to focus on getting Scotland back to being an equal country instead of a colony. Then you can come home, leaving that squalid abode you currently have to put up with. 🙂

    [I am a donor, by the way, if you need to know.]

  55. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Opinion so far seems unanimous.

    Wonder what Peatworrier aka Andrew Tickell would advise?

  56. Neil Mackenzie says:

    Looks like I did bung a tenner in for that and I’ve voted ‘Yes, appeal’.

    I don’t understand how it can be acknowledged that, without good cause, she embarked on a course intended to be devastatingly damaging to you but, then, is judged not to be responsible for the consequences of her attack.

  57. Gary45% says:

    Stu, I am a wee bit mibees aye, mibees naw on this one.
    The Establishment are now well aware of who you are and the legitimate chaos you bring to them, by simply holding them to scrutiny and calling them out.
    I feel they will bend the rules to try and bring you down at any chance given.
    If there is a fund raiser I’ll chuck in a few dineros for the cause.

  58. mountain shadow says:

    My feeling is that you should appeal, however, I would like the funds already raised to be used for the normal business of the site and as base for Indy Ref2.

    Given that an Appeal will take some time, perhaps open another fundraiser to cover the appeal court costs?

  59. Ealasaid says:

    Donated. Appeal

    But will defer to your judgement.

  60. crisiscult says:

    I’ve skimmed over a few of the comments and if I’m getting this correct, the third option (not in the poll) is to decide on appeal after the costs hearing. Have I got that right as an option?

    It’s just that in my view, there has been some degree of victory by a) getting exposure for wings, not highly negative despite the best efforts of MSM (N.Brtain) and b) confirmation that you are not a homophobe, despite Dugdale claiming you are.

    I’d be concerned about this being made to appear like a vindictive wealthy male hounding defenseless Dugdale (yes, I know!). However, if costs are awarded to her, I’d go for appeal, because I think that’s taking the piss and suggests she is fully vindicated.

  61. msean says:

    Appeal if it has a reasonable chance of success according to your legal advice.

  62. John Gibson says:

    Appeal – but I’d prefer a second crowdfund for the purpose of your legal costs, I feel the standard one is to fund what you do already.
    I’d contribute for certain. One for you, and one for the cause if you like.

  63. daredevil says:

    Appeal! Shitebag if you don’t ; )

  64. Graeme says:

    Stu, I always donate to your crowdfunders and donated to this one.
    If you need more I’m happy to put my hand in my pocket again.

  65. Sue Pearman says:

    Can you decide to appeal after and IF the expenses are awarded or does the appeal have to be lodged before expenses are awarded? – I voted yes above but think it’s not worth distracting your efforts if there is no award to her.

  66. Ahundredthidiot says:

    It feels wrong not to appeal, despite the pragmatist in me.

  67. sandycraig says:

    Completely disagree with the judgement and reasoning. I think you have a good chance of winning an appeal so go for it.

  68. carjamtic says:

    As any gambler is no such thing as a certainty, that’s why most gamblers prefer poker/cards as you are always in control of your actions, (know when fold them, know when to hold them etc.).

    However if you must take a risk, you are in the unique position of be able to see the other players cards and can definitely see you hold the winning hand, although what we are looking at, is the version of the game and a ‘do the rules apply’ scenario….it certainly looks that way and that is the risk.

    I don’t want to see a Cincinnati Kid moment but that looks very unlikely and while your opponent is certainly no Edward G Robinson, I keep hearing Joplin’s ‘Entertainer’ in the back of my head.

    All things considered I will go along with the recommendation from your legal team and for your peace of mind,I will match this years donation pound for pound if required.


  69. Anne Cowling says:

    I only donated a small sum, but will donate again if you make the call towards an appeal.

    I think I’d want to chip in for that whoever the parties were, the judgement seemed, to this lay person, to confuse rather than clarify the law. As a precedent it seems like a mess that wants to be sorted.

    If you’ve the stamina, go for it.

  70. William Habib Steele says:

    I voted for you to appeal. I make a monthly dd contribution to Wings. It’s not much. My income is only just above the limit for receiving Benefits. Along with my church offering and other charitable donations, I’m quite stretched, but I’m passionate for Scottish independence and I think Wings makes an important contribution to the cause. So, I think you’re well worth my small monthly dd, but to contribute more would be too much of a stretch. Please excuse me!

  71. Mick Lavelle says:

    Risking £50K to potentially save £150K seems like good odds, especially if your lawyers think you have a good chance of winning. However if you did lose, I would donate again to replenish the wings fund

  72. pa_broon74 says:

    At the hearing for costs, since the sheriff said she did defame Rev Stu, but it was fair comment, then while I think that’s a rubbish verdict, if costs are not awarded either way and you both walk away, I think given that hers are much higher – then you wrap it up and get on with more important stuff.

    That said, if Rev Stu is made liable for ANY of Dugdales’s costs, then absolutely appeal, because that would be wrong.

    Is what I think.

  73. Peter A Bell says:

    Financial considerations aside, there is sure a matter of both principle and practicality here. There may well be a few squeaky bums within the British political elite at the thought of the proles being undeterred by the economic barriers they erect to discourage challenges to their power and status. If we are to loosen those sphincters further and keep them that way then we have to be relentless.

    Set against the financial gamble of an appeal must be the thought that backing down later rather than sooner is still backing down. And backing down at this stage must surely devalue, to at least some extent, what has gone before.

    Crumbling at the bully’s second threat kinda takes the shine off having defied their first threat.

  74. AngusSkye says:

    Very obviously this is your decision, but I will certainly support an appeal financially.

  75. Maria F says:

    Dear Stu,

    I have not chosen any of the two options you propose because I have a third one:

    Considering that it was acknowledged during the court case that the accused was not innocent as all and in fact it was accepted that she indicated that your tweet was homophobic when it wasn’t, I think I would only be reluctantly convinced that a non-appeal route should be followed IF SHE is expected to pay her own inflated costs and you only yours.

    While I still think that she should pay the lot in an ideal world, I would be willing to see past beyond that with such verdict because I would accept that such a verdict will still serve as a valuable lesson to all politicans and political figures that they need to be more careful in the future when choosing to open their big mouths to insult anyone without thinking in the legal consequences of it. This is a much needed lesson because it is not fair, nor justice, and it is discriminatory to even suggest that politicians/public figures can say what the hell they want while you and me cannot.

    While I would not be dancing in joy with such verdict, I think your time, your inspiration to write here, your health and your intellectual input in the YES movement are far too valuable and too precious to be wasted or spoiled by having to worry yet again about another case. She is not worth that much, Stu, so don’t grant her the value she does not deserve. At the end of the day, and I am convinced that it was in part due to your legal challenge that exposed her stupidity, the individual in questions is now a hasbeen in politics, so in some respects that is some form of payback/vindication.

    However, if after it was acknowledged in the court case that she called your tweet homophobic, and she was therefore not the innocent puppy that she made up to be, you are forced to pay her over-inflated legal costs to protect her reputation and to cover up her own negligence, then I think you should appeal because it would be spectacularly unfair and unjust that you are forced to pay basically for the cover up of the stupidity of a mediocre politician with bigger ego than common sense.

    I think in that case you should appeal also because to me, such a verdict will send a very strong negative message that nobody can ever fight in the courts to re-establish their reputation against any politician that chooses to insult publicly anybody else and then hide behind pretended naivety.

    In other words, in my view such verdict will set up a precedent in Scotland for

    1. indirectly gagging non-politicians/public figures against politicians/political figures.
    2. indirectly allowing from then on only rich people the right to defend their reputation and integrity.
    3. Will openly discriminate average citizens, like you and me against public figures, who can say what the hell they want while we don’t, and then of course expect us to pick up the bill if we are “dumb” enough to challenge them in court for their lies and damage to our reputation.

    That is in my personal view, completely and utterly unacceptable and flies not only in the face of justice but also in the face of equality.

    But it is not really our decision, Stu. It is your life. It is YOUR decision. As I said, your life, your health, your time, your contribution to the YeS movement is far, far more valuable than the overinflated costs this mediocre politician saw necessary to cover up her own stupidity and oversized ego.

  76. BabsP says:

    My own view is that you should leave it be. The court vindicated you and found that you are not homophobic and that Kezia’s comments were without any factual justification. So the record has been put straight. She was wrong, your character was upheld. Yes, the money is a bit annoying but as far as I understand you have it covered. I’m not sure really what you have to gain and I think your focus and energy are better used in doing what you do best – making the case and challenging the MSM. I know this is not the popular view but I do think “let it go and move on to more important stuff” would be my choice. Though no question I would donate again if you follow a different path

  77. Bradford Millar says:

    appeal Rev she won’t be so smug

  78. Dr Jim says:

    Be very very careful of this Stuart

    You know that if you do this Stuart it will be in every newspaper and all over TV that you are waging a personal war against Kezia Dugdale funded by Independence supporters

    Have you considered the wider ramifications of how and what that’ll look like, because you know that the media in the whole of Scotland and the rest of the UK will side with Dugdale and they’ll fight back, front page tooth and nail and drag every aspect of your life through as much mud as they can inventively create to stick all over you and make life a living hell

    I’m no lawyer and no media expert but you know the media and what they’ll do, are you healthy enough for the kind of shitfest they’re going to throw at you

  79. Rick Guthrie says:

    More when needed.!!

  80. Craig P says:

    I’d wait for the outcome of the costs hearing.

    If you are liable then appeal.

    If not, walk away. There are more important battles to fight and we may need your focus on them soon.

  81. Patsy Millar says:

    Stu, I’ve voted for appeal with the rider that your mental well-being is the most important factor. If you decide eventually that you don’t want to go through the trauma again or, if costs are not awarded either way I think I’d go along with pa-broon74. Whatever you decide I’m with you all the way and would be happy to contribute further if necessary.

  82. Stuart MacKay says:

    I think you have to answer the following:

    1. What is the cost to you personally (time, energy, well-being)
    2. What is the cost to the campaign (time, distractions, etc.)
    3. How is the appeal conducted and can it be used to tie you down in time and money.
    4. Is Dugdale really worth going after
    5. Is the final verdict from the point of view of establishing the law worth pursuing.

    You obviously have a good idea of #3 but the others (apart from #4) are hard to quantify.

    An appeal plays into the hands of wings opponents, even if they lose – to some extent at least.

    I didn’t answer the poll but will once I’ve given it some thought.

    I donated and I will donate again if you need it.

  83. Proud Cybernat says:

    Seems that the defence of “Fair Comment” is soon to be abolished in Defamation cases:

    Page 7 of Draft Report.

  84. panda paws says:

    Not a donor but may I ask a question. Do you need to decide on whether to appeal before the costs hearing? I’m not a lawyer but it would appear you have grounds for a “Carmichael” ie not paying her costs since she did defame you and therefore not a frivolous claim.

    If you don’t need to pay her costs it might be better to leave it there and use the money for WBB. If you do need to pay her expenses, well that’s a different ball game, you’d be paying to be defamed and so well worth appealing.

    But like I said not a lawyer or a donor so not up to me.

  85. Craig P says:

    Craig P says:
    21 June, 2019 at 2:35 pm

    I’d wait for the outcome of the costs hearing.

    If you are liable then appeal.

    If not, walk away. There are more important battles to fight and we may need your focus on them soon.

    With the caveat of course, that if you do appeal, more funds will be forthcoming from me.

  86. Skintybroko says:

    I have already contributed twice to the current appeal and will do so again if required to meet costs if you lose, because I would prefer you to go for it. The decision was utterly useless and Kezia is lauded as the winner but no recognition that she was also in the wrong – Britnat justice may well kick out your appeal but it will show to all of us just how ludicrous the justice system is and am confident you could raise the same again through a separate crowdfunder.

  87. mogabee says:

    Donor and voted for appeal.

    More or less agree with lots of comment of how the judgement felt wrong with mass confusion of what actually happened.

    Obviously you make the final decision but you have never been one to back off if you believe you are in the right.

    Anyway fuck it, damned if you do and damned if you don’t! 😀

  88. Proud Cybernat says:

    Part Four Defences – Honest opinion

    112. The focus of this chapter is the defence of fair comment (re-labelled honest opinion in the Commission’s draft Bill) available to a defender in defamation proceedings under Scots law.

    113. The Scots law of defamation recognises a difference between comment and a statement of fact. Comments (which include opinion) can be recognised by readers as a point of view, and as such they can either be agreed or disagreed with. A statement of fact, however, cannot be treated in a similar manner. If a comment is
    defamatory it is not actionable where the defence of fair comment applies. As recently affirmed by the Inner House of the Court of Session, the defence of fair comment is, “[t]he expression of an opinion as to a state of facts truly set forth [which] is not actionable, even when that opinion is couched in vituperative or
    contumelious language.”

    114. For a defence of fair comment to succeed the words complained of must:

    ? be shown to be comment (and not a statement of fact);
    ? the facts from which the comment is derived must be stated, or
    else implicitly specified;
    ? the facts on which the comment are based must be true, or
    protected by privilege; and finally,
    ? the comment must be on a matter of public interest.

    115. If these requirements are met then the burden of proof shifts to the pursuer to show that the comment was not fair.

    116. The technical complexity of applying the defence means that it is less effective and less frequently invoked than it may otherwise be in protecting freedom of expression. The shortage of modern Scottish case law on the defence adds to the difficulties. The Commission recommend placing the common law defence on a
    statutory footing because of these uncertainties, thereby making the defence both clearer and more accessible. They also recommend renaming the defence ‘honest opinion’. from: file:///C:/Users/oem/Desktop/280272_SCT1118004370-001_Defamation_Final.pdf

  89. Themadmurph says:

    I’m not a lawyer, but since you’re soliciting opinion(SWIDT), I’ll throw my tuppence in, on top of my donation.

    If there is a chance of winning appeal.

    I’m sick of the media and commentators in this country. If nothing else, a win would ensure we never hear about the case or from KD again.

    I’ll happily throw in a few extra quid, if needed.

  90. Bloo says:

    I would say appeal. Your supporters and detractors both know fine what it is about regardless of how it is reported. If it has to be another fundraiser I’d like to think the support was there. You probably have a better idea of that yourself but yeah, go for it.

  91. Ian Anderson says:

    I donated just short of £140 this year,I say appeal.if necessary I could find a little more.

  92. William Wallace says:

    I’ve voted for the “appeal it” option (assuming your legal advice is reasonably positive) and will happily donate to any new crowdfund that you set up to this end.

    It’s pissing me off that she has been found to have defamed you yet somehow you have to pay her. I can’t get my head around that at all. It makes a mockery of justice.

    I still feel the case lacks clarity or any sort of real conclusion. I also feel that justice has not been served. For these reasons I think an appeal (if there is a reasonable chance of winning) is the best course of action.

    Go for it Stu.

  93. craig says:

    I can so easily say appeal as I didn’t donate £1000.

    I think personally, I think those that donated over £100 or more should be the ones to decide as they did dig deep to fund WOS for another year.

    My gut feeling is to say appeal as the media are deliberately distorting the facts of who won, YOU WERE CLEARED & Keiza lost but it’s claimed as a Kezia victory and she is allowed to freely tell her sob stories to the media about how such vile man named Stu ruined her relationship with her father.

    Did you ever get a chance to put in your right of reply? No, you didn’t and you won’t be allowed to.

    These are the reasons I believe that you should appeal but whilst I did donate, I don’t feel if it’s enough to merit myself voting what to do with that total raised as there were as I said, some very deep and generous pockets that contributed.

    If anyone replies to this comment suggesting that I still vote on the poll, I shall consider it but for the time being, I’m standing by.

  94. Andrew Davidson says:

    The injustice of the decision (and the rub-your-face-in-it glee of the press) makes me want you to appeal if it is viable.

    All I can say for definite though is if you appeal, and if you lose and have to do another fund raiser to rebuild the fighting fund I will find the means to put in some more.

    But honestly if you do appeal, to borrow from Kevin Keegan, I will love it if you beat them.

  95. wee jock poo-pong mcplop says:

    I voted “Appeal”. And I will back that up with more of my money if it comes to it – as will many, many others, I’m sure.

  96. Gardennat says:

    Appeal. I’ll donate double what I did last time.

  97. Proud Cybernat says:

    Proper link for Defamation Consultation paper here:

  98. DanDLion says:

    Always been a reader rather than a commenter on here but I’m all for you using any donation I made to finish fighting this case. You know what? If you lose I’ll donate the exact same again (more if I can) to make up for it. Keep going mate. Every small but honest step you take with these cretins is a step towards ending their influence here.

  99. Arthur C says:

    I agree he should appeal. However, was it not the Twitter Rev Stu entity that the case was brought against, rather than the Blogger Rev Stu entity.

    At 17mins 40 secs into his interview with Alex Salmond he stated that that he regarded the website as a separate entity. Which would imply that there should be a Chinese wall between the two entities.

    So by all means let’s have have another crowdfunder for an appeal against the decision but the current crowdfunder should be ringfenced to protect to the site and WBB reserves.

  100. Tommy Boyle says:

    We will all donate again if need be I’ve no doubt.

  101. DebzoHighland says:

    With the current political situation, I would rather see £50k worth of wee blue books printed and distributed as widely as possible this year… we need to get more folk opening their eyes to the lies they have been fed.
    However, I would be happy to contribute to another crowd funder to cover court expenses if your legal team feel you have a good chance of winning costs.

  102. Dorothy Devine says:

    Appeal Stu , I am tired of the crap we get from the media and how they protect their wee chums by lying and obfuscating .Equally that ridiculous judgement has got my dander up.

    Go get ’em if you can stand the pressure and as someone pointed out the attention of an entirely hostile media.

    Hand in pocket ready for fund raiser.

  103. Rodric Selbie says:

    I will donate again for you to appeal.

  104. dan macaulay says:

    Appeal, please.

    1. The judgement was pathetic and has to be addressed to be crystal clear.
    2. This dubious judgement is already being spinned & twisted out of all recognition and that can only be rectified by appealing.
    3. Not appealing will just encourage more of the same malicious misinterpretation
    4. Not appealing will just send the wrong signals (‘scaredy cat’, ‘guilty’, ‘no support’, etc.)
    5. This lurker will gladly contribute another year’s tv tax if needed.

  105. Bruce L says:

    Donor here (donated from different email address but same personal TLD as provided here). Yes, appeal.

  106. Fionan says:

    I would be inclined towards an appeal – I think it was very unjust to say ‘yes, she defamed you, but it was fair comment’. I for oe would love to see the smarmy triumphalist grin wiped off her face. But a lot depends on the legal advice you have been given, and do you trust your legal advisor. I would also suggest you consider the potential effects on yourself if the appeal went against you. Sometimes it is wise to pick your battles. Obviously we readers dont have all the information that you do, and that would be an important factor in your decision. As a very small donor, I would still be happy to donate again to help fund an appeal and it would make more sense to my mind to have a seperate crowdfunder for the appeal, and keep that wonderful war-chest for the main fight. But you are intelligent enough to make your own decision on this, and whatever you decide I wish you the best of outcomes.

  107. Bruce L says:

    …Oops not TLD, just domain. Although a personal TLD would be…nice.

  108. Robert Peffers says:

    I contributed, Stu, and will contribute again for an appeal. I’ve had a hard time financially for some years but that is now behind me. Go for it.

  109. Sarah says:

    Please, people, STOP talking about justice. The law is not about justice.

    I speak as the wife of a solicitor [and with some legal work experience myself].

    My vote is NOT to appeal this case. The Rev got the decision that he was defamed by KD. This should be enough to prevent anyone saying otherwise – they could be sued in turn.

  110. ronnie anderson says:

    The verdict in the 1st instance was a copout

  111. Brian Powell says:

    I would say appeal, I supported the first fund and will support this one.

    if the legal team say it has a chance good, of not put the money to whatever use Wings sees fit.

  112. frogesque says:

    Either way, its an afy heap o’ thon Wee Blue Book thingumys.

    I would go for it (but then since I’m broke I’d have nothing to lose). Its your call but start the crowdfunder anyway with the proviso that should the cash not be needed for any reason then it goes into the fighting fund.

    There’s a heap of good causes out there from local food banks to WGD and others such as the AUOB pipe band. Maybe Wings could hep out directly. Just a thought mind so hope no one is upset at the suggestion.

    Good luck and whatever you decide you know Wingers will have your back. Its an important message to get out in the wild, attack us and we WILL bite your arses one way or another.

  113. Kieran says:

    I say appeal, contributed to the fundraiser and if worst comes to worst I would do so again to help pay costs. Also just on principle it infuriates me when politicians break the law and are held to different standards than anyone else. The current incident and ignorance of the law suddenly being a defence for Wendy Alexander back in the day spring to mind.

  114. Donald McDonald says:


  115. Joseph says:

    I did not donate any money cause i just cant afford it. And i did not vote in the poll above mainly because i just dont know whats best.

    My concern is that were not in a positive state in Scotland with regard when their may be a new referendum. Politics UK wide is just to dynamic at the moment, no one knows what tomorrow will bring politically.

    And id hate to encourage an appeal and whilst that gets going, something changes nationally or within Scotland towards a referendum, an appeal may have greater focus for the press than a ref campaign.

    Wings is clearly a huge positive force in the fight and it would be a shame if that momentum is lost because of Kezia.

  116. Wullie Donaldson says:

    Appeal, I’ll contribute again if needed.

  117. Balaaargh says:

    I agree with Sarah would vote for a third option – no paying of Dugdale’s fees.

    The sheriff stated that the Rev was defamed so on that basis, has the right to defend himself in court. Was there not even something about if an award had been given , it would only be in the amount of £100?

    Send the bill to the Daily Record and maybe next time some puff-piece opinionist will think again that just because they can say something doesn’t mean they should.

  118. Phydaux says:

    As a donor, I admit to having ambivalent feelings about this.

    The Sheriff’s ruling seemed somewhat perverse and one which leaves it wide open to different interpretations. A fudge and clear as mud and possible endless legal argy-bargy. I was heartened that your professional reputation and personal integrity were legally and unequivocally protected in the ruling.

    I would hope, perhaps naively, that the Sheriff’s discretion in deciding costs should reflect the above. I’m finding it difficult to make a judgement call without access to the advice and guidance on the pros and cons of appealing.

    I do want you to move on from this and focus on what you do best. Kezia Dugdale’s political career started and ended in failure and I don’t think any more time or money or effort should be spent on her. I would be willing to donate again to cover costs, as a separate thing so that it doesn’t impact on the money raised for our fighting for Indy fund.

  119. William Black says:

    Go for it another fundraising if needed

  120. Balaaargh says:

    Should say, “I agree with Sarah and I would vote for a third option”

  121. T C POTTER says:

    Appeal Rev. We got your back.

  122. Paul Garbett says:

    Stu – it is, as you indicate, a big ugly question. I’m a regular donor & voted for you to appeal – largely, I admit, because I am seriously irritated by Kez getting away with it AND making hay with it at the same time. I’m also ticked off on your behalf – the judgement was flawed IMO (not a lawyer).

    So the message is this – fight it if, and only if, it makes sense (given legal advice, chance of winning, personal choice, funds, etc.) I wouldn’t feel my donations had been wasted in any way.

  123. Robert Kerr says:

    Appeal please Stu.

    The political scene has shifted so much of late. The question can be asked as to how much the Sheriff was influenced by the political scene then.

    I am a donor and am prepared to donate again.

    Fifi needs to grow up!

  124. ronnie anderson says:

    Rev you made the observation in your evidence had that story of Kezia’s been looked at by a Editor or Sub E it wouldn’t have been printed because of the homophobe allegations .

  125. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    If Kezia had agreed for costs to be shared, I would probably have conceded a draw and left it at that. But as others have already said, the notion that Kezia can be formally judged to have defamed you, Stu, yet you have somehow to pay all her costs just ‘cos she’s “won”, is an outrage. An affront to justice. On top of the insult of the media continually skewing the evident attempt at a compromise judgement.

    She may be a has-been, but she’s still an establishment shill. Make them all swallow their sneers. Continue to challenge the greedy self-serving defamer.

  126. Winifred McCartney says:

    Go by your legal advice and your own judgement and welfare. Will support whatever you decide your health and wellbeing more important to us than anything else. We have so much to thank you for.

  127. Jolly Green Giant says:

    You were defamed. You won. Everyone knows it.

    Don’t let the establishment distract you from the main goal !
    They want to put you out of the game.

    Your straight talking, data driven analysis and desire to deliver “Wee Blue Book II” to every voter is essential to achieve the converts required for independence.

  128. Mark Fletcher says:

    I say APPEAL.

    Launch a fund raiser for the specific amount when known. Pay with funds already in hand. Don’t close it until the sum is met.

    Those who already donate will never leave you in the lurch.

  129. Derek Rogers says:

    I’ve voted, as a donor, that you should not appeal, because that’s the best course for indy. My reasons:

    1. The worst outcome is that we lose £150k out of a £170k fund, reducing our campaign fund to zilch.

    2. Stu may actually have more than £170k in his back pocket; he needs to have enough to cover what he realistically expects to achieve for indy, after losing £150k on a failed appeal. If he has that, an appeal is possible, but is still not the best course of action.

    3. Our goal is to win independence, not to demolish Kez. She’s going to be less and less relevant as time goes on.

    4. An appeal will give us publicity, and wind up the Yoons rotten, but directing th £150k to soft No’s will be more effective.

    Yes, I agree that the judgement was total fudge, and a slap in the face to the Rev Stu’s self-respect, but those aren’t obstacles on the road to indy – they’re off to one side, strategically irrelevant. So lastly:

    5. The indyref is going to be won on facts (that’s why the Yoons have stopped engaging), and Wings is crucial to that (the Wee Blue Book even more than the site). So we need to keep Stu on track and free of distractions. No more crisps, please, no more pizzas and ice-cream, just keep exposing the lies, and more power to your elbow.

  130. Elizabeth says:

    I was in no position to contribute last time, but am now. I say appeal. I’ll happily contribute again when needed

  131. Wobbly says:

    I donated and would gladly donate again if you lost so go for it Rev.

  132. Sarah says:

    @Derek Rogers: well-explained. I agree entirely. WE know, as do the MSM, that KD was found to have defamed the Rev. The Rev has won and made his point.

    Anything more is a distraction from the primary aim of the Rev, Wings and us all. KD is a low-level and incompetent politician who is leaving the arena shortly. Give a cheer and leave it at that.

    Do not look for JUSTICE in court – you will be disappointed.

  133. maureen says:

    Go for the appeal.Can spare a tenner a tenner for the pot.

  134. Hoss Mackintosh says:

    Appeal – from regular donor.

  135. Bill Hume says:

    If you decide to appeal, might I suggest a seperate fundraiser………….if it goes half as well as the last one, we’re laughing.
    Don’t forget, even if we loose this it will keep Wings in particular and the Yes movement in general at the front of people’s conciousness.

    I’m willing to contribute as always.

  136. Scotspatriot says:

    Stu….sometimes in life, you’ve got to go with Gut Feel !,
    What ever way you thinks right, right by me !

  137. red sunset says:

    I did not vote as I believe the decision should be mainly that of your legal team and/or your own health and personal considerations.

    Can you leave the decision until the decision on costs is known ?

    Either way, if this goes financially against you I expect another fundraiser, and will contribute again. I think a specific fundraiser for legal costs would be well in order.

    I had thought at one time, that it might be pragmatic to leave appealling against the ‘fair comment’ thing to others – on the grounds that surely the legal profession would be unhappy with such a loose end, and somebody would need to clear it up eventually. But I see above this situation is set to be abolished – or is that just some muddying of the waters that will be dropped once your decision is made ?

  138. Morgatron says:

    Stu, appeal . I will double up on my donation if you lose the appeal.

  139. Terry callachan says:

    Appeal and risk all , including the demise of wingsoverscotland at a critical time in the history of Scottish independence campaigning ?

    Or do not appeal , walk away with a result that said you are not what she claimed you were , and keep what funds you have to campaign for Scottish independence ?

    Of course it all depends on how much money wingsoverscotland actually possesses at present and that is the crucial point

    Don’t gamble if you’re skint

    If wingsoverscotland had a million quid in the bank I would say yes go ahead and appeal
    But I doubt if wingsoverscotland has even a quarter of that

    So I say keep your focus on the real prize which is Scottish independence
    Do not appeal and risk losing more money in court

  140. Effijy says:

    I will stand with you on your decision after your legal consultation.

    I would like to add that Dugdale has proved herself to be a stupid
    Wee girl in a job she was never fit for.

    She made a complete fool of herself so many times as proved by
    Your own validate research.

    We have a bigger fish to fry now focusing on Independence for Scotland,
    For Truth, for Justice and to cast Bojo the Clown and the corruption of
    Westminster from our lives for ever.

    I’m with you none the less so I won’t press the button above to influence you.

    Great to see you getting a better pay deal as no one deserves it more.

  141. Sal Clynder says:

    I think you should run a separate fund raiser for legal costs as you did before. The small print did not indicate the amounts involved and I for one would have preferred knowing where my donation was going.
    That being said I would have donated to both funding the website and your wages as well as your legal costs.

  142. Anne Forte says:

    Yes go ahead. Even Kezia’s dad knows she’s wrong. Happy to contribute more dosh. The dentist took £80 off me yesterday for a painful filling, so I think I can do the same for painless justice!

  143. Lollysmum says:

    Donor Stuart & I say go for it. Appeal.

    Right now Dugdale is getting away with committing defamation & is intending to make money out of it. If you don’t appeal then there is nothing to stop any politician from doing the same to any other member of the public. We have so many dishonest politicians in government right now who think they can get away with anything. What about Mark Field? Where does it end?

    At some point we have to say “enough is enough” & we aren’t going to let her away with it. If we can’t get justice with the weight of this site’s readers behind it then it’s a “poor do”. Behind you all the way. Let’s go for it.

  144. Alistair Grapevine says:

    I donated and would do so again if the appeal failed.

  145. Jez Carroll says:

    As a donor. I’d say go for it if YOU think it’s worth it
    But I’d also suggest a crowdfunder purely for the appeal starting next month? As I’d chip in another tenner once I’m paid again ?

  146. Frank Gillougley says:

    I considered this at the time (having followed it in detail) and came to the conclusion that you should appeal.

    Short of that, I really wouldn’t even mind if you absconded with the party funds and put the lot on a nag at 33/1.

    We owe you anyway.

  147. Juteman says:

    As an intermittent donor since 2012, I say go for it.
    How can you be found not guilty of being a Homophobe, yet still be found guilty by the MSM?
    Stupid question, I know.

  148. findlay farquaharson says:

    go for the appeal. if new crowdfunder required, wont take long to hit target.

  149. John says:

    Appeal, if necessary I will donate to funds , decision was outrageous, surely they couldn’t get it wrong twice , if they did it is undeniable bias !.

  150. Papajay says:

    Rev. I’ve think it’s an imperative that the appeal is raised. For all the reasons stated, if you don’t do it it goes on unchallenged and no one sees a conclusion. The sheriff’s decision in finding for you but not awarding is a get-out. You need to take it further, win or lose. There’s an inevitability surrounding this.

  151. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Derek Rogers @ 15:47,
    Sarah @ 15:53,

    I appreciate what you’re saying. It has merit. I would actually have been inclined to agree, but Kezia demanding full financial restitution after being judged to have defamed Stu just sticks in my craw, I’m afraid. I reckon she was lucky with that verdict, but to me she is now ratcheting her luck a notch too far.

    However in the end it’s Stu’s call, after taking due professional advice and weighing up the chance of success.

  152. galamcennalath says:

    Lots of folks suggesting wait till the decision on who pays how much in costs. That does seem to be a milestone on the road. IMO it would be completely unacceptable for Rev Stu to pay Dugdale’s costs. That definitely needs challenging, should it happen.

    I still think if the legal team say the full judgement can be challenged with reasonable chance of overturning, then go for it.

    However, perhaps if they suggest 50%ish AND Dugdale’s costs are hers to pay, it might be worth moving on focusing on Indy.

    If Rev Stu has to pay her costs, she will definitely be seen to have won.

    If Dugdale pays her own costs, and given the judgement did say she defamed, perhaps that is different.

    Rev Stu’s call, with the asstance of expert advice.

  153. Black Joan says:

    Donor speaking (and also to the case against the Liar Carmichael)

    I’m hoping for a Carmichael-type award as to costs as the best result and end to it all.

    I’m concerned that the QC who led against Carmichael so effectively, Jonathan Mitchell, tweeted (I think) an opinion that it was unwise to pursue this in the first place.

    But I’m indignant that the decision appears to have given all manner of trolls and Yoons the belief they have free rein to call you a homophobe (and to “defame” others because “opinion”).

    And also indignant that poor wee confused hard-of-thinking KD has been celebrated for her “brave stand” and for winning “her case”, and paraded around by her MSM pals as a suffering heroine who absolutely deserves her new nice little earner because horrid wicked Stuey.

    So I don’t know how to vote. I think you must decide and consider the effect of any course of action on your wellbeing and on the (surely-to-God imminent) campaign for independence.

    If you pursue an appeal, could that jeopardise your ability to devote enough time and energy to the campaign?

    Could some arcane legal restriction compromise your ability to publish all you would want to publish (so convenient for the Establishment).

    Would any appeal coincide with Alex Salmond’s case, thus delivering a juicy double target for the Yoon media?

    Who was it who said the law is an ass?

  154. Proud Cybernat says:

    “The sheriff, unusually, did not make an order for costs. A hearing is now scheduled to decide that, the two parties having failed to reach agreement between themselves.”

    Well, from that statement it’s clear that Dugdale – having been found by a judge to have defamed you (which is why the case went to court in the first place) – expects not to have to pay her own costs (at east).

    The arrogance and sense of entitlement is truly staggering.

  155. Luxbob says:

    Do it, appeal, just donated you have to.

  156. CameronB Brodie says:

    I’ve not voted yet but it appears the British state has Dugdale’s back. I can’t see you obtaining justice, whatever you do. I’m leaning towards settling and moving on but I’ll see if any btl comments change my mind.

  157. Stoker says:

    I was, at first, in the camp of just pay up and let’s get focused on indy but now having seen the figures involved i say to hell with that. In for a penny in for a pound. Appeal it Rev!

  158. Stan Wilson says:

    Donated then, will donate again. I strongly believe the judgement was politically arrived at. My strongly held belief. Appeal, justice is required.

  159. Vestas says:

    I’ll put in double the license fee I donated for the fundraiser if you go for an appeal. The decision was bizarre to say the least and requires clarification otherwise any politico can claim “fair comment” defence which is outrageous.

  160. Gavin Barrie says:

    As a repeat donor – I’d like you to appeal and will give further support.

  161. AndyMcKangry says:

    Donated last time, will donate again. Appeal!!!

  162. Al-Stuart says:

    Hi Stu.,

    Our family cumulatively contribute between £25 to £100 at each WoS fundraiser with compliments.

    We vote to APPEAL.

    Based on your forensic analysis above it makes sense.

    As other Wingers have hit the nail on the head, some people need to know that the poor can now afford lawyers. Even though many here are not poor, the very high legal fees make it a wealthy persons game with most of we mere mortals WERE locked out. Not any more, and that is worth more donations from this Winger and probably many others.

    If you need another WoS APPEAL fundraiser for dim Dugdale, count us in. Minimum £50 and more if needed.

    I would hope that even just the 1% donating this level would give you peace of mind. However, should the law go completely off the rails (and after Carmichael I believe there is some fairness) then I would hope the 99% of WoS lurkers would also chip in.

    Lastly, WELL DONE. Such is the quality of your writing that your readers value your words above diamonds and golden nuggets.

  163. CameronB Brodie says:

    How can we assess the potential likely outcome, does the verdict give us clues? IMHO, it does, as the decision defied coherent legal reason. That is the strength of opposition we are up against and the lengths that power will go to defend itself.

    I’m not urging caution just to be different, I think an appeal has the potential of ‘bleeding you dry’.

  164. Alison Whiteford says:

    If you have the energy for it I say appeal. Happy to add more to the coffers if needed.

  165. DiForrester says:

    The Sherriff’s ruling was that “Parties should attempt to agree expenses”. It seems to me that, based on the ruling that Kezia did indeed defame Stu, but did it kind of accidentally because she actually believed the tweet to be homophobic, that the best outcome would be for both parties to call a truce and walk away wiser.

    An apology from Kezia would be nice & a magnanimous acceptance of the apology by Stu would end the whole thing. Stu has spent money, Kezia has spent money. Lessons have (hopefully) been learned.

    Is it the case now though, that Kezia is being small-minded and petty enough to pursue Stu for her costs, even though the judge found that she did indeed defame Stu? If so, then I’m with the majority of commenters that I’d support an appeal. Kezia presumably now knows that Stu is not a homophobe & his tweet was not homophobic, so she should realise that her actions in using both her column & FMQs to attack Stu were wrong, even if the Sherriff’s finding was that she is not required to pay damages as a consequence. Chasing Stu now for costs is just adding insult to injury.

  166. galamcennalath says:

    BTW Happy Summer Solstice / Midsummer / St John’s day !

    iScotland should be more Nordic and make it a fun day. Bonfires, watching sun rise, a wee tipple or three, whatever..

  167. Kenny says:

    I think aspects of the judgement NEED to be challenged. It essentially establishes that you have no right to defend your good name. It also makes some baffling leaps of logic and seemed to me to make at least one key factual error. That’s not OK.

  168. amber says:

    As a recent donor who was more than happy to chip in for the indy cause, I am dismayed that so much of the appeal fund might be used up in this way. It feels like a distraction, especially as political events are moving quickly and the end of days of the UK may come sooner than expected. It will also undoubtedly be reported as a vendetta against a gay woman and not help in securing soft yeses. If the decision is made to appeal then a separate earmarked crowdfunder is necessary. While the legal costs were mentioned in the recent one, the headline cause was indy. Let’s not forget that priority.

  169. Donald Mac says:

    I say appeal. Happy to donate again if needed

  170. Euan Whazermy says:

    (Donor) Dear Rev Stuart, I’m not presuming to give advice, only to relate my thoughts
    . I’m sure the British state would be delighted to have you drawn into another potentially distracting court case,could it even be at a time of their own choosing? If you won, the media would simply report that you had lost, and the hard of thinking would continue to insist that was the case.
    Although these are large sums of money for us it is loose Change for the state.
    Kezia Dugdale is nobody and one day soon (maybe thanks to the Wee Blue Book) she will wake up in an independent Scotland and that will be a far sweeter victory than could ever be gained in any courtroom.

  171. Al-Stuart says:

    CameronB Brodie, you are absolutely right about the attempts to bleed WOS dry, but those of the learned legal establishment that are rabid Masonic Bretheren/OO, they are in a very difficult position.

    If they pervert natural justice and precedent too far, then they risk bringing the legal system into disrepute.

    Removal of a sheriff does not happen often, but up here in Caithness we had a sheriff who was removed.

    Fortunately there are a decent number of neutrally minded sheriffs in the Scots legal system and the ones who do have political views are reasonably good at putting those pecadilos to one side.

    Should that fail, there are sufficient of the 45% now within the legal establishment to balance the worst excesses of rabid OO behaviour.

  172. Bill McLean says:

    If YOU decide to appeal i’ll chip in!

  173. Dan says:

    I haven’t voted yet. Going to mull it over for a bit longer but at this point I tend to agree with the thoughts of Maria F, Sarah, and Derek Rodgers.
    My heart says appeal, but with other such important matters that we will inevitably have to deal with in the near future, my head says don’t be distracted.

    With solicitors and lawyers costs being so high and out of kilter with median wages, they could well be hoovering up 1000 wee blue books worth an hour.
    I’d prefer if my donation went towards 1000 WBB 2.0s rather than it just be part of the ongoing game of extrication of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.
    Is the protracted time and stress an appeal will involve really the most beneficial use of your / our resources in the quest to help Scotland end this unequal union.

    Switched on folk can see the judgement seems a bit of a fudge, and that it should actually raise internal questions amongst the pin head dancers united profession because it’s a bit of a Pandora’s box they opened for themselves.
    It might be better to concentrate on Indy campaigning rather than be distracted by an extremely hungry squirrel.

    We know exactly what we are up against so should choose our battles wisely.

  174. Terry callachan says:

    This is worth consideration

    The Scottish government is reviewing defamation law in Scotland because it has not changed in the last 20 yrs or so and the internet is mentioned specifically as an issue

    This suggests to me that the current law is seen as weak and unreliable
    For this reason alone I would strongly recommend that you do not take a case back to court because the internet was a factor

  175. CameronB Brodie says:

    See, I haven’t a clue about the in-and-outs of it all. I just have a bit of legal theory and practical reason to go on. I’ll away back to weighing up the opinions of others. 😉

  176. And Spouse says:

    Well Stu, what have you actually done that is wrong? I much enjoyed your interview on RT. You present facts and provide evidence. The truth is important and why should the media get away with portraying you as the bad guy in this one. Lots of good relevant advice above.

    Whatever you decide you know ALL of us are with you on this one. 100% support never mind the poll.

    Personally you were right to go to court and there is no good reason why the courts should award the bad guys with all that money. You should pay nothing. Appeal.

  177. Jools says:

    Have contributed and would do so again if your lawyers advise you to appeal.

  178. SlimJimmy says:

    I’ll donate, can’t think of a more worthy cause.

  179. Bill Cochrane says:

    Donor and will again if need be. To appeal or not? I am minded to say go for it as it would stick in my craw to have to pay any of her costs but would relent only if at the costs hearing you only have to pick up your own tab. My reasoning for the latter being – we all know and any reasonable minded person looking at the case knows who won, you have that in the bag so, as I say, it might be worth just leaving it at that. On the other hand, if you are awarded costs against you, then hell no, I say fight it all the the way.

  180. Esteban Fuertes says:

    The original judgement was a scunner and a further illustration of a rotten establishment looking after its own, granting absurd wriggle-room to an ex-pol that an ordinary prole would never have been given. If you feel there is any mileage in appealing, I have no doubt that you will get the financial backing, including from me again. However, my honest take is that I have no faith in the judiciary ever playing it straight in this matter.

  181. Jim Thomson says:

    Your legal counsel will be your best guide, I suspect.

    The weight of support here shows that most of us will happily provide more donations if the need arises.

    Cameron B is quite right to suggest being wary about diving in, and the risk of “bleeding dry” will always be there regardless of outcomes.

    If it isn’t this battle, there will be another one concocted shortly afterwards that will be a continuing attempt at tying your time and efforts up in such wrangles. Based on that alone, go for it.

  182. D Johnstone says:

    When Right You Fight, Enough of this Establishment Bullshit. If we need another fundraiser You`ve got my contribution every time. There`s another 99% watching from the sidelines. Give them a reason to join in……

  183. Doreen A Milne says:

    I’ve voted to appeal but I’d be okay if you decide not to for any reason, not just the obvious one. Everyone knows what you are and what happened and I wouldn’t want her to win one single fucking penny of costs. We’d never hear the end of it.

  184. Des says:

    Voted yes gave you £20. Willing to give more if appeal fails whether Wings needs it or not.

  185. CmonIndy says:

    I have the strong impression now that even Scottish courts will find ways to find for the Unionist side in any Indy dispute. Plus the additional anti-Wings screams to follow from the oleaginous Britpress. So I, as donor, say let it go.

  186. Muscleguy says:

    I voted yes appeal but subject to your caveat about your lawyers’ advice and your own judgement which I trust Stu. Several aspects of the judgement struck me as odd. Firstly that you were defamed but not of sufficient standing to warrant a pecuniary judgement in your favour for that. Secondly that Kez is so stupid she didn’t realise her words were defamatory when there was lots of discussion to that effect between her initial words and repeating it in the Holyrood chamber.

    It would seem the Sheriff paid little to no attention to the latter. Normally if you defame someone then carry on and do it again when aware of the legal jeopardy that will count against you in the judgement. That Dugdale tried to use parliamentary privilege to repeat it at Holyrood (my understanding is that doesn’t apply here in Scotland) should also be a black mark against her. Also her recent appointment to a senior academic position should also bring into doubt her claim of being too dim to recognise what she had done.

    Okay, she got the job because the Centre is going to require donations and bequests to keep going and so they need a figurehead with political and civil society connections and a track record of smooching folk. But it is still a senior academic management role as well.

    As a former academic I look very askance at the idea that such a job went to a demonstrable idiot.

  187. Giving Goose says:

    Don’t appeal.
    Then make a statement that you (and us) have been energised to redouble efforts to achive Indy.
    Reason being that post Indy we, to borrow a phrase, drain the bog of unionist, British Nationalist corruption that has poisoned Scotland’s institutions.

  188. stuart mctavish says:

    If the appeal will cost another 50K, chances are it will cost Ms Dugdale’s financiers another 100K+ making potential gain/loss of +0 (cost recovery)/ -250K+ (defendant’s cost + possible counter claim) rather than the somewhat optimistic +/- 150K stated.

    Given the original claim appeared to be won on principle, but failed to substantiate the damage arising, it might be impetuous to appeal anything other than costs – which ought to go with the claimant since there was no other way to get the defamation withdrawn or shown to be such.

    However, in the matter of people calling each other silly names, there is surely no guarantee that the judgement on cost will be any less convoluted than the judgement on defamation and perhaps any out of court agreement that eases her personal burden and involves her apologising to her father might be the least worst option, if feasible.

  189. ronnie anderson says:

    frogesque 3.13 there is not such thing as Auob Pipe band SAPB started by Derek H Campbell & others ( if I had used the full name of the Pipe Band it would have been caught in the wordpress filters but most people will know their name )

  190. Rob Outram says:

    I’m a regular donor and I say appeal but based mainly on positive legal advice.

  191. Pete Barton says:

    I ticked for appeal.

    However, as the blue day book says..

    Listen to your heart, but use your heid.

  192. Meindevon says:

    I want to say appeal.

    However, it may be draining on your mental health and also your time. And at the end of the day the establishment will pull ranks and find a way to make you pay up most probably.

    We need you focused. This could be the most important times ever and if you are not 100pc on it the Unionists will pounce on any weakness in the Yes movement. They have already taken out AS.

    Only you can decide I think.

    I have no doubt we will all back you whatever.

  193. Matt says:

    Go for it Stu, the judgement is a shambles and should have been given in your favour. There’s a general idea that sheriff’s know what they’re doing but that just isn’t the case. Best appeal and try and get a more experienced judge looking at the case

  194. Hmmmmmm!

    Have donated and voted –

    Having taken on a long legal battle myself I would advise caution.
    I eventually got a sort of result in my favour but it was exhausting.

    Many are pointing out that KD has the establishment behind her and they would love to launch a full scale demolition job on you and your supposed relentless picking on this poor defenceless woman.
    Lawyers will get richer whether you win or lose but what will you get out of it?

    Ultimately Indy is the goal and this could be a huge distraction.

    Go with your legal advice – we’ve got your back if you decide to go for it.

  195. Marie Clark says:

    I’ve given this a fair bit of thought, and, I think that you should go for it Stu.

    It was a totally bizarre verdict. How on earth can she have been found to defame you, but it was fair comment. How the hell did the sheriff square that circle. A very odd ruling, with serious legal consequences, so yes, challenge it.

    I’ve given twice to this years fundraiser, and if you should lose the appeal, well, I’ll donate again, as I’m sure a lot of others will.

    The MSM seem to consider that the matter is closed, and Dugdale won. It appears that they have not considered the fact that you might appeal. More fool them.

  196. Terry callachan says:

    Anyone know the outcome of this review of defamation law by Scottish govt

  197. Jim Watson says:

    First time donor, voted for appeal, would donate again if appeal falls, go for it…

  198. Ian mhor says:

    Tough decision.
    The factor that Parliament was used to air a personal grievance is always worth shutting down hard, whoever does it. That part was a rank abuse of Parliamentary privilege, despite the subsequent court case – that alone was my vested interest and what my piffling donation was for at the time.

    I’d appeal if I was solvent enough to do so as a private individual. It’s a sair gamble, but sometimes principles are worth fighting for. If it were to make ANY Scottish politician think twice about abusing our Parliament, for any reason, then aye. That abuse would enrage me even more than the accusations.
    I am deeply saddened the Scottish Parliament
    did not treat it with the seriousness it deserved at the time. I hold our Parliament to the very highest standards and that sort of shite does not fly.

    Otherwise, if I recall, you did make overtures to settle the case out of court, which was declined a few times? The fact there was a definite finding supporting your right and reason to bring the case (as opposed to the ultimate award) kinda leans to thinking there would just be a ‘knock for knock’ with a reduced payment a-la-Carmichael, as mentioned.

    However, being no stranger to courts, It can be very much at the whim of the court. Albeit there are specific ‘guidelines they’d still have to follow – how vindictive would the court actually be or want to be to “Wings”? It can only be your call.

    Anyway, my donations are unconditional payments for services received, do with it what you will.

  199. ElGordo says:

    Hmm, given Dugdales new job, who will fund her additional costs on an appeal? Has any organization committed to doing this, or will it need to be funded personally?

    Still think, wait for outcome on costs before deciding.

  200. Denis Knowles says:

    Appeal. In the unlikely event that you lose, another crowdfunder will soon replace the funds. Keep up the good work Stu.

  201. Capella says:

    As an openly gay woman, Kezia Dugdale must be fully aware of what homophobia is. Therefore, to accuse someone of being a homophobe without evidence is absurd. That can’t be “fair comment”. It simply isn’t credible that she genuinely believed it.

    The sheriff’s ruling is politically motivated IMO. Fortunately they can’t transport people to a penal colony these days although they are doing their best to make life very difficult for their enemies.

    Next up – accusations of transphobia and demands that everybody stop reading this blog, that WordPress close it down, that the twitter account is suspended and a state of emergency declared.

  202. Terry callachan says:

    History as it was taught to most of us

    What did you learn in school today ?

    I learnt that the government of Britain was English and that in England both parties, Liberals and Conservatives, favoured peaceful progress and social reform unlike most countries of Europe afflicted by conflicts and political revolution.

    I learnt that Dr David Livingstone from Blantyre was English.

    I learnt that the poet Lord Byron was English because he had an English father (and Scottish mother) and he was born in England.

    I learnt that the philosopher economist John Stuart Mill was English because he had a Scottish father – uhm – but he was born in England so he was definitely English.

    I learnt that the writer Rudyard Kipling was English because he had an English father and was born in India – but couldn’t possibly have been Indian because he was English, after all.

    History our flexible friend.

  203. Terry callachan says:

    To Capella. Your post at 7.11pm

    See para 12

    “The defence of honest opinion”
    What better evidence is there of her “honest opinion” than her own

  204. el cruden says:

    weird – over the last year or so I’ve frequently thought ‘ach, it’s not worth it, just let it go’ but reading this article I’m reminded of something I myself tweeted: Fundamentally, either a member of the public has the right to legally defend themselves against what a politician says about them, or they don’t.

  205. Bobby McPherson says:

    Go for it Rev. You are not alone. You deserve to have the chance to clear your name. Standing order coming soon.

  206. george wood says:

    I’m probably being stupid, but I can’t find the poll to vote in.

    If I could vote in the poll, then I would say yes to the appeal.

    The ruling was terrible, as it allows any politician or journalist to call somebody they don’t like a homophobe with no evidence to back it.

    The sherif allowed his dislike of the Rev to sway his judgement.

  207. Fergus Green says:

    Stuart = this donor would like you to appeal.

  208. Terry callachan says:

    To George wood…

    There was a yes no button at the top of the page just below the percentages shown in favour or against

    The button has gone so I guess the poll has ended

  209. Joe says:

    People who make accusations of anything with ‘phobia’ at the end without good cause are completely dishonest, slimey, hateful scum and should never be backed down to for any reason. Appeal and win and you will have a very large victory on your hands. Appeal and lose and will have still done the right thing. These types need defeating

  210. CameronB Brodie says:

    “As an openly gay woman, Kezia Dugdale must be fully aware of what homophobia is. Therefore, to accuse someone of being a homophobe without evidence is absurd. That can’t be “fair comment”. It simply isn’t credible that she genuinely believed it.”

    I agree 100% with this, as the “probability” that KD is unaware of what homophobia is, is vanishingly small, IMHO. Subsequently, the judgement appears unsound but are we here to sort out Scotland’s legal system, or to support independence?

    Probability—The Logic of the Law

  211. george wood says:

    @ Terry callachan

    Thanks for the explanation.

  212. Al Hunter says:

    From what I can see you have already accepted the judges decision that KD defamed you. So it is the costs alone that need to be hammered out.
    State that you accept the judges decision, see what happens with the costs that are awarded at this hearing thing and then decide what to do. From what I am reading above there might be a different way forward where you pay her poxy fees and then you can double back and sue her for the defamation to get your costs back.

    Keep fighting it all the way.

  213. Terry callachan says:

    The Labour Party in Scotland and the BBC in Scotland are exchanging staff

    I wonder if the tories and Lib Dem’s in Scotland do this sort of thing too

  214. Gary says:

    Good luck with the appeal. Such an ODD verdict, saying that she WAS wrong and that you’re NOT a homophobe but then NOT finding against her? Using her own ‘stupidity’ as a defence?

    A bit like the ‘insanity’ defence in criminal cases. It SHOULD have left her with egg on her face but she has, of course, misrepresented (a nicer way of saying a lie)the verdict. Had she not been a former Labour leader and you not an Independence blogger the result would very obviously gone your way.

    She’s a cheek asking for costs, even letting the verdict stand she should pay her own, she sis what she was accused of doing. The court accepted that your point was NOT baseless. But…Indy.

    Reminds me of what one of my local councillors is going through. Chris McEleny, SNP councillor for Gourock on the Inverclyde Council, has gone thru the mill as an MoD employee. During the Indy campaign he was (wrongly, and they’ve admitted that) accused of being an ‘SNP Spy’ and taking pictures at the submarine base and sending them to “SNP Headquarters” Now ‘vetting staff’ are saying that there was NO wrongdoing and no reason to think there was. Despite this he had his security clearance withdrawn, was hounded and asked personal questions about family background and political belief. At the hearing the also tried to taint him by saying he “quoted a line from an IRA song” This should be getting UK coverage but has only managed to get to my (and his) local paper (rag) ‘The Greenock Telegraph’ which has reported it in as Labour/Unionist friendly a way as it possibly can.

    Justice is FAR from blind, justice wants to know who you vote for, what religion you are and where your family came from. Scotland has come a long way, but has MUCH further to go yet…

  215. Ann says:

    The vote is still open.

  216. Cubby says:

    George Wood@7.45pm

    Callachan is giving you incorrect info. I just voted. Scroll down the post and you will find the current voting percentages and the option to vote.

  217. Terry callachan says:

    To Cameron B Brodie ..your post at 7.44pm

    I agree that we should use our energies for Scottish independence and not sorting the Scottish legal system

    However I fail to see how the judge could refuse K Dugdale,s evidence about what she says she thought.Only K Dugdale knows for sure what she thought .

    True to say that what she says she believed , appears to be extremely doubtful
    I would say she may well have lied but no way can I prove that it’s just a hunch for all the reasons you and others mention

    But the judge would have great difficulty as would anyone other that K Dugdale proving
    what K Dugdale believed to be true
    Unless you can read her mind !

    If she says that is what she believed then that is what she believed and nobody can prove otherwise
    And that applies even if (what she believed ) was factually incorrect information

    It is this aspect that is covered in para 12 of the Scottish govt review of defamation in Scotland

  218. Terry callachan says:

    Funny that …I do not have the voting button on my page anymore ?

  219. Maria Rossi says:

    Appeal 100%
    I will happily make a donation to any costs involved.

  220. CameronB Brodie says:

    The application of the law needs coherence with the outside world, if the law is to deliver justice. This application of law appears grounded in utilitarian rationality, and is, subsequently, only coherent in a yoon universe. That is the outside reality we live in, apparently.

    Theory and Application

  221. Cubby says:

    Callachan @8.07pm

    Funny that – perhaps it’s because you have already voted.

  222. CameronB Brodie says:

    Terry callachan
    That might be why the judges are paid big bucks and are allegedly skilled with good judgement. 😉

  223. Terry callachan says:

    To scrubby

    You could be right

  224. Terry callachan says:

    CameronB Brodie

    Ahh yes good judgement

    I’m sure they have it , but do they always use it hmmm

  225. Joe says:

    Taking a look at nicola sturgeons twitter. This is what happens when you play the identity politics game. You cant win. Dont play it. One day your a champion of the ‘oppressed’ the next your a somethingphobe. Serves her right for getting on every social justice bandwagon goimg. Learn the lesson. Run the country. Thats all

  226. Cubby says:

    Callachan @8.17pm

    Or perhaps in your mind a big bad Englishman sneaked up and stole it away from you.

    Choke on your cornflakes when you read the headline in the National this morning.

    I’ll remind you – IF YOU LIVE HERE YOU VOTE HERE

    Hope that didn’t give you indigestion.

  227. filloffier says:

    i voted to appeal
    i have reservations about your legal team tho
    the initial verdict should never have been reached had they been totally in control
    this makes me worry about them handling the appeal effectively
    i’m sure you trust them implicitly
    i dont trust anyone tho
    will donate again, if reqd

  228. CameronB Brodie says:

    Can I chicken out of voting if I fess-up? I don’t feel comfortable simply cutting loses, but I really have no confidence in the Scotland’s judiciary. If only there was a way of shining a light on the structural manner that British nationalism has poisoned civic society in Scotland. 😉

    Judgment and Decision Making: Psychological Perspectives

    2 The overarching metaphor:
    Wo/man as an information processor

    Forty years ago Neisser (1967) introduced the idea that an intelligent organism operates in a perception-action cycle: the senses take in information from the environment, the mind/brain performs computations on that information and the outputs of those computations are used to guide subsequent goal-directed actions. A key aspect of this “information processing” metaphor is that biological organisms are capacity limited; there is a limit on how much information can be processed and thus the organism needs to be selective in what it attends to in the environment – i.e., the information taken in via the senses (e.g., Miller, 1956).

    The interaction between attention and memory is also fundamental to the information processing metaphor. The notion of working memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974) is now widely accepted as a descriptive model of how various forms of information (visual, phonological) are represented in a temporary memory store. In this model a central executive is responsible for allocating attention to various processing tasks such as the controlled thought needed for problem solving, decision making, reasoning and so on.

    The degree to which processing relies on this controlled versus relatively automatic processing is often a function of the involvement of memory. Tasks that have been encountered numerous times in the past become straightforward to execute or solve because relevant actions or solutions can be retrieved from memory and thus performance is less dependent on active attention. In the traditional “gambling paradigm” of JDM research (Goldstein & Hogarth, 1997), such routine- and experience-based changes in the cognitive processes and their respective “costs” have largely been neglected (Betsch & Haberstroh, 2005; Klein, 1998).

    Another vital aspect of information processing is that organisms are endowed with an ability to adaptively alter their behavior – i.e., learn. Human and non-human animals alike are able to learn contingencies among events and actions; an ability which is fundamental for survival in a changing environment. The understanding of the cause-effect structure of the world gained through this learning process also facilitates causal reasoning and induction which in turn can lead to the development of categorization – the process by which we organize our knowledge.

    Categorization is influenced by our causal knowledge and (perceptual) similarity relations between objects (e.g., Murphy & Medin, 1985). As well as being able to organize knowledge, humans also have the ability to think about their own thinking, this regulation of cognition or metacognition is directly connected to the adaptivity of our behaviour (e.g., our ability to decide how to decide in different situations, (Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1993)) and may be related to intelligence (Bröder, 2003; Stanovich & West, 2000)….

  229. Terry callachan says:

    CameronB Brodie…

    Please send this to the judge ?

  230. Meindevon says:

    Wow that was quick! Even for Boris.

    Daily Wail (so it must be true) reporting that police were called to Boris’s home in the night after report of a big rammy with his girlfriend.

  231. ewen says:

    I voted to appeal. I will bung in at least the same as I gave to this fundraiser if you are needing a fighting fund.

  232. Monty Faulkman says:

    You should appeal. If there was another fundraiser in the event of an unsuccessful appeal, I would certainly donate again.

  233. Colin Stuart says:

    It was a perverse verdict – if her intemperate response was “fair comment”, then so was your original comment on Mundell Jr. If the lawyers reckon it’s worth a try, I’ll certainly chip in, in the interests of putting that blithering doughball where she belongs – in the wrong.

  234. Dawn says:

    You’ve got to go for it with the appeal if there’s a chance of winning. Otherwise it sets a dangerous precedent. Happy for my money to be spent that way.

  235. robertknight says:

    If your brief says do it – do it.

    As for the £, you know where we are…

  236. Terry callachan says:

    To scubby…

    I didn’t read the national this morning
    I don’t eat cornflakes

    But I did read the Scottish governments bill about who can vote in the Scottish independence referendum and how it will be conducted
    I also read the electoral commission Scotland response to the consultation that was conducted prior to the bill

    There was a lot of discussion about who should be eligible to vote
    and whether there should be conditions such as nationality or length of residency
    as there are in all countries around the world when deciding these matters

    It was decided that if you say you are resident in Scotland you can vote
    There will be no time limit so one day in Scotland and you are eligible to vote

    there will be no proof of residency in Scotland required other than you registering with the local authority as living at an address in Scotland

    You can apply online

    I think these are weaknesses

    I still think English people should not be allowed to vote in a Scottish independence referendum because they are from the very country we seek independence from
    I believe firmly that our captors should not be able to vote for our continued subjugation at the hands of their country

    I believe also that if England ever has an independence referendum ( why would it ) Scottish welsh and Irish people should not be able to vote no matter where they live

    In my view , residency as the only qualifying condition to determine a nations future is as loose and open as you could possibly have especially if there is no time requirement

    No country in the world allows people to vote in elections if they have only been in the country a day ,sceptical Scotland

    Nothing racist about it
    English people are not a race by the way

    England do not allow people to vote in elections or referendums purely on residency

  237. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi george wood at 7:30 pm.

    you typed,
    “I’m probably being stupid, but I can’t find the poll to vote in.”

    Scroll back up to Rev Stu’s article. Underneath where it has,

    “Below is a poll. It won’t in itself be the total be-all and end-all of the decision because we also have to factor in our legal advice (and website polls can be sabotaged), but it’ll be considered along with the balance of your comments on this post.

    Should we appeal the sheriff’s judgement in the Kezia Dugdale case?”

    Immediately under that, you should see a “VOTE” button. Click on it and the two choices should become visible. Click on the one you choose, then click on “VOTE” again.

    As cubby pointed out, if you have already voted (on your current device), you probably won’t see the “VOTE” button.

    I voted using my work iMac this afternoon. On my home iMac, when I click on “VOTE”, I’m getting the two choices so I could vote again but I won’t.

  238. Haggishunter says:

    I would be inclined to let the whole thing slip and concentrate on watching the Brit media and getting the Indy message out there.
    Sometimes it’s hard to let injustice go but real injustice is a victim of rape, or physical abuse etc.

  239. Dan says:

    Terry callachan says: at 8:50 pm

    …I did read the Scottish governments bill about who can vote in the Scottish independence referendum and how it will be conducted
    I also read the electoral commission Scotland response to the consultation that was conducted prior to the bill

    There was a lot of discussion about who should be eligible to vote

    Was there any discussion on the UC1 or equivalent forms being sent out to applicable folk in a timely manner? You know, so they actually have time to complete and return the forms and won’t be denied the vote like in the recent EU elections…

  240. geeo says:

    The anti english bigot @8.50pm

    “I still think English people should not be allowed to vote in a Scottish independence referendum because they are from the very country we seek independence from”

    You do not even understand the subject, you utter clown .

    You actually think Scotland is part of England !!!

    Thats the problem with you hateful bigots, big on rhetoric, rather less so on factual details.

    Take your shite for a walk callachan, nobody here is buying it other than your fellow bigots. None of whom are indy supporters, go figure huh ?

  241. yesindyref2 says:

    It’s a pretty big gamble, having £170k cut down to £20k would be a brutal punch in the gut.

    It doesn’t do that. There’s £100,000 to pay if there’s no appeal, an unsuccessful appeal adds only £50,000, not £150,000. So with no appeal there’s £70,000 left in the crowdfunder, with an unsuccessul appeal, £20,000. It’s £50,000 for an unsuccessful appeal.

    Personally I say have a dedicated WBB2 crowdfunder, my boy wants to know how to get hold of some as he know exactly what he’s going to do with them.

    Interesting interview by the way, the Rev came across totally differently from the 100% dick he is on Wings and complete mind-blowingly arsehole on twitter but yet, who knows exactly where that fine line is between free publicity from being a “vile” blowhard, to going over the top and getting arrested and charged, or sued.

    Has anyone sued the Rev … … … … … [1]

    Anyways, Cactus spoke up for him. Cactus knows.

    [1] that really pisses the Rev off but I’m banned anyway so FU 🙂

  242. Confused says:

    the REV has all the right enemies – all the wankers hate him, which is a massive plus in my book

    mike small for example, is an arsehole and his website is shit – that is crudely put, but TBH this nonentity does not -deserve- the 1000 word essay of cultured sarcasm
    – and there are many others (the scary thing is how these folks are meant to be “for” independence)

    as for the dugdale case – this is like a game theory problem with the payoff matrix all question marks … no answer

    the question is
    – did the judge make an error?
    – was I nobbled?

    more simply – can I get a fair hearing in this town?

    I don’t think you can – and while I do admire some guy giving it the full-AHAB

    From hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.

    – if it was a matter of time (and you weren’t doing anything), I say – go for it – but its money too

    I am looking forward to WBB2 with the combined anticipation of
    – the smiths reunion, andy murray back at wimbledon, the elder scrolls 6

    it would be a good jest, to reach the unionist diehards, to put the wbb2 in the form of 96(!) “theses” and nail them to the door of the central orange hall

    or better still, tell them

    “independence is justified by faith alone”

    ps i see big boris is testing out his “pimp hand” for when he is PM

  243. Hector says:

    I have voted not to take an appeal forward for the following reasons. Primarily because I value your energy and commitment towards our goal of independence and believe that to continue with this action is a waste of our most valuable resource, YOU.

    I also believe that Ms Dugdale is simply not a worthy enough opponent and is no longer a threat given she is no longer the Leader of Labour in Scotland. She has exposed herself as a Tory by advocating a vote for Tories in Scotland and contributed to the decline of the once mighty organisation which purported to protect the people of Scotland and further the cause of Independence.

    You have contributed hugely to the exposure of their hypocrisy and careerist self interest. I think you were absolutely right in taking the original case to court for defamation. We are where we are.

    We are also in a situation where the wheels of history are in flux, political turmoil is guaranteed to continue and intensify into the near future and we don’t know what challenges might arise in the form of direct challenge, false flag and even military threats or economic warfare. We need to be prepared for all eventualities.

    I say, we be satisfied with the outcome we have at present depending on the final judgement as to costs. But Dugdale is not worth spending another £50k on. We have fired a warning shot, lets conserve our energies because there will be bigger and more threatening battles to come. We need to be ready and prepared and conserve our resources and in particular Rev Stewart Campbell who is our most valued resource….

  244. manandboy says:

    The Scottish Government needs to give itself a bloody good shake about who qualifies to vote in an Independence Referendum. The default position ought to be what every other country does. The SNP dogma of open unconditional inclusivity is naive and democratically indefensible. Does France allow visiting Spaniards to vote in France’s constitutional ballots. Of course not. To give a vote to hostile nationals is madness.
    The rules should be drawn up as if Scotland was already an Independent country.

  245. CameronB Brodie says:

    Sorry, I was in a rush earlier and had too many tabs open. This is the correct title and link for the material I quoted @ 8:32pm.

    Cognitive processes, models and metaphors in decision research

  246. peter says:

    Do not appeal.
    The advice you had last time was that you had a very good case. That was correct, and KD was indeed found to have defamed you. But the courts found a way to deny you the “win” anyway. Do you imagine it would be different this time? I am a retired solicitor and
    I agree with the views of Sarah (21st June 2.02), BabsP (21st June 2.33) and Dr Jim (21st June 2.34) who set out why best to leave the matter now.
    I am a donor – but really my support is for the brilliant and invaluable website, not your twitter output. [Having said that, I enjoy reading your twitter and will contribute if necessary].

  247. ahundredthidiot says:

    Took the day to think about it and voted to appeal.

    I knew when I clicked the button it might cost me another tonne.

    f*ckin just do it Rev

    she’s a

  248. Effijy says:

    I’d ask those still to vote to take part in a multiple choice question.

    What would you rather have:

    A, See Kes Dugdale made penniless.

    B, Wings funds boosted by £100K by winning an appeal.

    C, Seeing full focus on our Indy Ref 2 preparations resulting in
    Scottish Independence..

    Again I say that I stand by the Rev’s decision after he seeks legal advice
    But the big prize will need everything we have got to give.

  249. Bobp says:

    The judge said you weren’t homophobic, as a donor my opinion is appeal it.

  250. Capella says:

    @ Terence Callachan – the passage you refer to is:

    12. The statutory defence of honest opinion should be available in relation to a statement of opinion including a statement drawing an inference of fact which:

    (a) indicates either in general or specific terms the evidence on which it is based; and
    (b) is such that an honest person could have held the opinion conveyed by the statement on the basis of any part of that evidence.

    It states that you should have evidence to support your opinion. Without scrolling through the court decision I recall that Kezia Dugdale did not have evidence, she just “felt” homophobia.

    However, this is a proposal to change the current law so whether it has any value ATM is a moot point.

  251. CameronB Brodie says:

    I’ve mentioned that humans are biopsychosocial bags of emotions. Well, that understanding opens up a whole new level of reasoning and seeing the world. Time for a bit of brain science on the processes of reasoning, judgement and decision making?

    Problems for clinical judgement: introducing cognitive psychology as one more basic science

  252. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Can someone remind us please – did the Labour Party confirm that they would *not* be paying Kez’s legal fees?

    There was some form of backtracking, but it escapes me…

  253. Hamish100 says:

    Has the Rev apologised to Nana yet?

  254. DerekM says:

    Fuck them Rev take them all the way.

    Now when are you launching a wee blue book fundraiser this tag on to the annual Wings fundraiser will not do old chap!

    If we are to do this thing then lets do it right!

    I hear by call for an immediate Wings wee blue book fundraiser to commence ASAP.

  255. Bobp says:

    Manandboy 9.16pm ‘hostile nationals’ tread carefully you’ll have the resident trolls calling you a ‘hostile nationals bigot’ lol. My personal thinking has always been a 5 year residency.

  256. Bobp says:

    And should also have said more tightening up procedures on the postal voting.

  257. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi geeo.

    I’m playing Devil’s advocate here.

    Consider this question and preamble.

    Scotland and England are in a political union, established in 1707. There is to be vote, in Scotland, to determine whether Scottish residents want to dissolve that political union. Anyone PERMANENTLY resident in Scotland can vote.

    The dissolution of this union will result in the Kingdom of England, including its constituent parts Wales and Northern Ireland, becoming an independent state, ie no more UK. Scotland will then regain its independence.

    Now, will all permanent residents of Scotland vote for dissolution, or could there be a percentage who feel a loyalty to the other kingdom (or regard themselves as “British” rather than “Scottish”) and vote against dissolution of the political union?

    IMHO, there are a significant number of “natural born Scots” who will never vote for Scottish independence. They tend to be seen on the streets of central Scotland during the month of July.

    Similarly, there are a number of “natural born Angles”, who would vote the same way.

    However, there are an increasing number of people who regard themselves as “English Scots”, having been born in England but having chosen to reside in Scotland. They make their existence known at the pro-indy marches and rallies.

    I can see where Terry Callachan is coming from. What about the “carpetbaggers” who don’t regard themselves as “English Scots”?

    Sadly, it would be impossible to segregate “English Scots” and “carpetbaggers”.

    Because Terry Callachan suggests not allowing those born in England but resident in Scotland to vote, does not make him a racist. It is but one solution, however impracticable in the current Scottish cultural climate.

    I’m sure I read somewhere in the past couple of days that those who were not born in Scotland voted something like 52% for NO in 2014.

    Where do you draw the line? The decision on who will be able to vote in indyref2 is way above my pay grade. I vote for MSPs to sort it out. It’s at their pay grade.

  258. Phil says:

    I say what Peter A Bell said – the points are big. As a donor I am still here and ready. The Yoon State is still here as well. We must move from under their shadow.

  259. Cubby says:


    Do you not get tired of getting so many things wrong.

    One minute I am Scrubby next minute I am Scubby.

    Heard it all before from you. You never answer any questions put to you. As soon as a question is posed Callachan disappears.

    Why don’t you go for broke and say all Tories can’t get a vote. Or only if born in Scotland to two Scottish parents ( both born in Scotland ) with permanent residency for 20 years and can stick a thistle up your arse. Or even add on to it all grandparents must be born in Scotland.

    I know what your views represent and it ain’t pretty.

  260. MorvenM says:

    The Labour Party did backtrack, or at least say they’d pay no more, but the Daily Record is now covering Kezia’s back.

    Rev, I think if the sheriff had ordered both parties to pay their own costs, I would say OK, draw a line under it and move on. But I think it’s outrageous to expect you to shell out £100K+ for her costs when it was clearly found she defamed you – and ran up unnecessary expenses as well. If that’s the case, you should appeal.

    I donated this time, a few times before, and would do so again if need be.

  261. Bobp says:

    I read TC’s post at 8.50 and there is absolutely nothing racist about it, just common sense. You cannot have holiday home owners and people coming to Scotland for a few days registering and voting in something that will change the lives (for the better) of the people who live there.

  262. Bobp says:

    MorvenM. My thoughts exactly.

  263. James Anderson says:


    Appeal Stu. It was worth pursuing first time round. There was enough in the verdict to give legs to an appeal. Win or lose see it through. The cause she represents needs pinned by seeing the sheer scale of backing you’ll continue to receive.

    Final comment. The fundraiser provides the comfort the cash is *already* in place to cover costs. But drawing on it at the expense of future campaigning or wage worries is not necessary. Treat it as an insurance but do so with the certainty that you can run a cost-covering fundraiser in the event it doesn’t go your way. The community will make sure those costs are met in full and the £170k we’ve raised here *will* be used to hammer them in an Indyref II campaign.

    Slainte, James

  264. Cubby says:

    Racism is the practice of discrimination against people based on their race , nationality or ethnic background.

    That is one definition. Callachan fits the bill.

  265. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @MorvenM –


    Another thing which worries me is that, given the way we saw the original finding being spun (most recently by Kaye Adams), any costs awarded to Dugdale will surely be presented as an actual cash ‘win’ for her, implying that Rev was the guilty party all along.

    I don’t know – this shite makes my head hurt, but we’ve already witnessed the kind of double-think required to make sense of the MSM treatment.

  266. McDuff says:

    Appeal this nonsense. I`m ready to contribute.

  267. Capella says:

    Is an appeal against the Sheriff’s decision not to award costs really a “distraction”?

    Is it reasonable for a politician to get up in Parliament and demand that people stop reading the blog of a private person and make wild allegations of homophobia? Or is it just coincidence that WoS is the foremost independence blog?

  268. Fireproofjim says:

    Appeal. I will also contribute.

  269. Michael says:

    please appeal. You were found not to be homophobic(which any reasonable person knows) so there’s no way you should be paying for costs. I will happily pay into a separate funder for this as I know will so many others. The way the MSM has portrayed the outcome of the case is disgraceful and the way you have had no right of reply is, while expected, ridiculous. If you’re not willing to do another crowdfunder, then I still agree to spend whatever is necessary to challenge the egregious result.

  270. Cubby says:

    Bobp @10.00pm

    I think you have not read previous posts from Callachan. He has been posting for quite some time on this matter. The point is not holiday home owners or people coming up to Scotland for a day and voting etc etc. This clearly is wrong. As is people living in England but voting using their parents Scottish address or irregularities with postal votes.

    Callachan wants ALL English and sometimes he says all foreigners banned from voting in Scotland. So he tells me my Independence voting son who was born in England lived there for about 2 years and has lived in Scotland for the rest of his life should not get a vote.

    Bigotry or racism call it what you want.

  271. Robert Peffers says:

    @Joe says: 21 June, 2019 at 8:23 pm:

    ” … Run the country. Thats all.”

    Now why is it I have to keep pointing out that you are very obviously very wrong, Joe?

    Nicola Sturgeon has two functions. She is the elected leader of the political party, (correctly), called The Scottish NATIONAL Party and referred to by Scotland’s enemies as, “The Scottish Nationalist Party.

    Her second function is as the elected, (by the entire Holyrood Parliament of Scotland), as “Scotland’s First Minister”.

    Thus you are very wrong to claim she should only, “Run The Country”. Matter of fact as First Minister she has the duty to represent Scotland internationally and as leader of the SNP to also represent Scotland internationally. It may have slipped your memory but the United Kingdom is exactly that – a united kingdom comprised of only two, equally sovereign, kingdoms and as first minister Nicola Sturgeon must speak for The Kingdom of Scotland both within and out-with the United Kingdom. A job, by the way, she has done extremely well internationally.

    Furthermore, she has led the SG to being head and shoulders above the Kingdom of England, (all three countries of it, as statistics show The Scottish NHS, Scottish Education, Police Scotland and much, much more lead every other part of the United Kingdom.

    Why just this week the figures were published that show Scotland is ahead of England in Productivity.

  272. CameronB Brodie says:

    Terry callachan
    I’m not calling you a racist but I do think your reasoning is flawed and your argument is prejudiced against English people living in Scotland. They are not a homogeneous group who will automatically vote to retain the Union. Though I do support a minimum residency period, to improve voter engagement with issues, I think the vote must be open to all permanent residents of Scotland.

  273. CameronB Brodie says:

    P.S. Though I might decide to do a flit to warmer climes tomorrow, I’m a permanent resident of Scotland, as this is my habitual place of living. I also had an English granny, so could claim English nationality. Would I get a vote? Where do you draw the boundaries that define the individual’s access to legal justice?

  274. Cubby says:

    I voted to appeal and will contribute to the fund. Dugdale had a chance to settle before going to court. She refused and spun out the whole affair and increased the costs thinking that the Labour Party would finance her. She then politicised the matter by raising it at FMQs at Holyrood demanding Nicola Sturgeon condemn Wings etc etc. The actions of a typical Labour in Scotland politician.

    I would only temper my opinion by saying as long as the site owner is happy to take on the hassle again. Court cases are stressful.

    Appeal against the decision.

  275. Col.Blimp IV says:

    Cubby and Geeo

    Few have enough bile in their being to even contemplate squandering as much as a milliliter of it hating the English/Blacks/Jews/Homos etc. … when their are supercilious, malevolent Trolls such as you two around to despise.

    Are you self-sacrificing, decoy ducks for racial and cultural harmony … or just a pair of pricks?

  276. Flower of Scotland says:

    Go for it Stu! We will help out, won’t we???

  277. cirsium says:

    Rev – I’m with Peter (9.25). Don’t appeal. There is a storm approaching us and the focus has to be on winning independence. By all means, challenge the costs. After all, the decision was that the defender did defame you.

  278. geeo says:


    I believe i called callachan a BIGOT rather than racist on this issue, although he has previously been racist to other groups.

    Just putting it out there.

    As Terence Callachan, he was banned from here previously for said same anti English bigotry.

    He deserves ZERO respect and shall get none from me.

    I never give bigots tbe benefit of the doubt.

  279. Robert Peffers says:

    @Terry callachan says: 21 June, 2019 at 8:50 pm:

    ” … I still think English people should not be allowed to vote in a Scottish independence referendum because they are from the very country we seek independence from.”

    Jings! You do blether a right load of pish, Terry.

    How about you define for us all the definition of, “English People”?

    Perhaps it would be helpful if you could define what colour, creed and country of origin? The truth, Terry, is that people choose what country they call, “their country”, the country doesn’t choose them, or rather the country shouldn’t choose them.

    What of the USA? Do you know the verse written on the USA Statue of Liberty?:-

    Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

    Yet the North American, (Indian), Nations are the true Americans. The rest are immigrants.

    Try telling that to Donald Trump.

    Oh! And by the way, for the purpose of the Anti-Discrimination acts the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish are races.

  280. geeo says:

    Tut tut, concern blimp, such personal abuse shall get you reported. Careful now.

  281. Graham says:

    Kezia called you a name, big fucking deal.
    As things stand she’s been made to look an arse.
    I’d call that a win.

  282. Liz g says:

    Briandoonthetoon & geeo
    If memory serves… And don’t trust it,cause it comes and goes!
    There are more than enough indigenous Scots to out vote any recent one’s.
    The problem is getting them registered and out to vote..

  283. Dan says:

    @Capella says: at 10:07 pm

    Is it reasonable for a politician to get up in Parliament and demand that people stop reading the blog of a private person and make wild allegations of homophobia? Or is it just coincidence that WoS is the foremost independence blog?

    In a fair and balanced world it would be unreasonable, but in case anyone forgot, we currently don’t live in a fair or balanced world, hence our striving for an Indy Scotland so we can begin to address these issues.
    Fools rush in… Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is considered…

    Anybody that challenges the status quo directly is always going to be up against it. Assange, Snowden, Craig Murray, Andy Whiteman, and Stuart Campbell have already experienced this and the very real implications of challenging that power.
    The Establishment protects its own in case you forgot. See Iraq war, Westminster paedophilia, Carmicheal, etc.

    We need to box clever, on our terms, when there is a degree of control and certainty, not be led into potential blind alleys that could cause significant issues.

    We know the law is an ass sometimes. Remember Wings donated some previous funds to assist the starving woman that was fined a ridiculous amount for stealing a Mars Bar. Remember the young tory boy that effectively got let off with glassing someone. Remember Gove has admitted taking cocaine and there’s no statute of limitations, yet he still seems to have his liberty.
    The reality is that currently there are laws for them, and laws for us.
    We can pay them handsomely for the privildege of playing them on their highly constrained grey legal minefield, or we could fund an equivalent led by donkeys campaign.
    Which is going to reach more people in the long run?

  284. ahundredthidiot says:


    Surely to God, in this day and age, a drone is worth at least 150 pathetic Iranian lives?….I mean….what’s the World coming to?

    Trump must be a Goddamn fool.

    Obama would’ve let ’em have it!

    months of Trump bashing for his tweets, the minute he suggests Iran should face the sword……nothing…..but support.


    He has done them over like a kipper.

  285. DrunkenDee says:

    I voted Yes but I’m happy to leave it up to you and your legal advisors to decide. If you do choose to go ahead with it however, I like many others will be happy to donate more if required

  286. Derek Rogers says:

    Having seen how the discussion here has developed, I would like to press again my view that we should not appeal. This is because:

    a. IndyRef2 will be won on engagement with facts, and WoS leads the field on this. An appeal distracts us – and more to the point, distracts the Rev Stu – from that goal.

    b. The Unionists have no fact-based case, so they won’t engage. Their modus operandi is to hurl abuse, raise the temperature, and possibly destabilise the debate through state-instigated violence.

    c. Mounting an appeal plays along with that Unionist strategy. If we win, the MSM will make us look like all kinds of disloyal, execution-ready, worse-than-Nazi tractors; and if we lose, they will say “I told you so,” with knobs on. But either way WE WILL NOT CHANGE THE SOFT-NO VOTE.

    d. The court judgement so far has been met with a widespread and wholly justifiable sense of moral outrage — I get that. But moral outrage – or even moral incompetence, which I think this judgement shows — does not win appeals, and does not win votes. Appeals are won on intricate legal niceties, and votes are won by hard-headed policies that increase the voters’ sense of well-being and prosperity. Our job is to convince voters that indy is such a policy.

    e. A successful appeal would be a step towards fixing the justice system, but — bear with me if I use this phrase — now is not the time. Wings does not exist to fix the justice system. We can do that when we’ve got our country back.

    Eyes on the prize, guys.

  287. Kangaroo says:

    Donor. I have been through similar cases. So I know how much angst they cause and how much they can distract from daily life and in this case more important indy matters.

    The consensus seems to be to go for it, I will assist with another donation. However I feel an appeal should only go ahead if Dugdales costs are awarded against you otherwise let it go and concentrate on indy.

    If you do appeal then there needs to be another crowdfunder because as you have already pointed out only a small percentage of readers actually contribute financially and an appeal may ruin the WeeBlueBook2 distribution which would be a total disaster. This is what the WoS fundraiser was for and not to fund the court case. As others have said the Establishment is not on our side as they have too much to lose.

  288. Gary45% says:

    Stu just remember,
    Smile and the Yoons smile with you.
    Fart and you are a terrorist.

  289. Robert Peffers says:

    @Bobp says:21 June, 2019 at 10:00 pm:

    ” … You cannot have holiday home owners and people coming to Scotland for a few days registering and voting in something that will change the lives (for the better) of the people who live there.”

    No you can’t and that’s what the law says. You cannot register and vote in both countries. Thing is how do you catch them and prevent them breaking the law?

    See here:-

  290. Footsoldier says:

    I too voted yes but have changed my mind and would now vote no unless your legal advisers are strongly for an appeal.

  291. defo says:

    This donor says do whatever will wipe the smirk off of her troughing face, and i’ll pay to watch. Deal?

  292. John fisher says:

    appeal Rev , she cant get away with what she done and justice needs to be done and if you lose who gives a fuck , have another whip round and we’ll all donate to you again , we’re all behind you , good luck and thanks for all you do

  293. Col.Blimp IV says:

    I would think it reasonable for only citizens of a country to have a vote to elect the National Government.

    Residents to have a vote at local government elections.

    Resident EU citizens in EU elections.

    Without doing any research whatever, I would be willing to bet that this is the norm throughout the EU.

    There being no such thing as a Citizen of Scotland, the demarcation line between “citizen” and “resident” is impossible to define and as Holyrood is essentially a county council, there would be no need to try … but for Referenda.

    Do we really want newcomers with little knowledge of, no great experience of and only tenuous links to Scotland making decisions on our behalf?

    It is not a question of “Scottishness” but of having put in the time to earn the right to a vote.

    I have as much right to citizenship and a vote in Italy, according to that country’s constitution, as any of the 60 million who live there but I do not think I have any moral authority to use it.

  294. Cubby says:

    Blimp@ 10.39pm

    A bit of a hate speech there Mr Blimp. As I have never commented on any of your posts this seems to me to be unwarranted and unjustified. If you have read any of my posts you should be well aware I do not like being referred to in posts lumped in with other people. I think it is rude. But your comments are way beyond plain rude. Nasty and hateful in fact.

    Want to explain what’s bugging Blimp. What’s your problem Blimp perhaps we can work it out together.

    The only prick that is required is the one to burst your overblown blimp. A nice jaggy thistle will do the job.

  295. Gary45% says:

    Mr Peffers@11.17
    I personally know punters who had homes North and South in 2014, who voted No then sold off the northern homestead and moved back “dan saf”.
    When the day comes for Indy2 the Indy voting entitlement will have to be pretty “draconian”.
    Many Yoons will bitch and moan at the rules, but hey if you don’t pay tax, receive benefits, live full time in Scotland etc you DO NOT GET TO VOTE IN INDY2″.
    I would personally go for min10 years living in Scotland.
    No second home status.

  296. geeo says:

    Liz-g @10.59pm

    When English/non Scots living in Scotland realise the shit show shambles coming to England/Wales/NI, i reckon a good chunk will happily vote Yes to indy.

    Not like OUR government will create a ‘hostile enviroment’ for them.

    Remember the latin quote in the movie Event Horizon, when they realise they have mis-interpreted a latin phrase.

    Instead of “save us”, they realise that the phrase was “save yourselves”

  297. Capella says:

    Which is going to reach more people in the long run?

    Depends if he wins?

  298. Robert Peffers says:

    @CameronB Brodie says: 21 June, 2019 at 10:29 pm:

    ” … I also had an English granny, so could claim English nationality.

    Oh! For heaven’s sake stop with the pish.

    The only people who have had the rules about Grannies, or even any other nationality of relatives, were the, “Home”, International Sporting organisations.

    Legally in the United Kingdom your legal nationality is British factually when you apply for a passport it is a, “British”. passport you get.

    See here:-

  299. Cubby says:


    ” Holyrood is essentially a county council”

    The Blimp is going all out this evening to be offensive. 8 out of 10 for that one Mr Blimp.

  300. Don McLeish says:

    pa_broon74 says:
    21 June, 2019 at 2:26 pm
    “At the hearing for costs, since the sheriff said she did defame Rev Stu, but it was fair comment, then while I think that’s a rubbish verdict, if costs are not awarded either way and you both walk away, I think given that hers are much higher – then you wrap it up and get on with more important stuff.
    That said, if Rev Stu is made liable for ANY of Dugdales’s costs, then absolutely appeal, because that would be wrong.”

    As usual, Pa has hit the nail on the head. You should not be asked to compensate someone who has been found to have defamed you, but, as the fair comment cop-out has been introduced, a similar logic can be applied by Dugdale. I wonder where the “fair comment” beast was hiding in the Carmichael case.

    As a regular donor, I’d be happy to contribute to any fundraiser for costs however our little-esteemed purveyors of justice decide to award them.

  301. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    “The airbrushing of Scotland’s history and identity” is part of a wider agenda @Terry callachan says at 7:41pm

    They are following the doctrine of the Nazis when covering/discussing/teaching ANYTHING to do with Scotland or her people:

    Think BBC, think British Nationalist Politicians then read the quote below:

    “Deprive them of their national consciousness, treat then as a tribe and not a nation, 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”

    No not Tory Policy or part of the BBC Royal Charter.

    It is a quote from SS Gruppenfuhrer Reinhard Heidrich.

    Not just the idea of Concentration Camps they got from the British Empire!

  302. Col.Blimp IV says:

    Robert Peffers – from your link :

    “If I’m registered twice, can I vote twice?

    If you are registered to vote in two different electoral areas, you can vote in local elections for the two different local councils.

    However, it is an offence to vote twice in the same type of election, such as in a UK general election. Doing this could result in a fine of up to £5,000.”

    My reading of that is – You can vote in as many elections or referenda as you like, but only once in the same election.

    Precluding double voting at UK General, EU Elections and UK wide Referenda … Scotland only Referenda, Holyrood and Local Government elections being fair game for English Students, Itinerant Workers, Holiday Homeowners and the odd unscrupulous wealthybastard who buys himself a vote in Jockland, just because he can.

  303. Col.Blimp IV says:


    I’m only telling it as it is … not as we would like it to be.

    The SNP’s re-naming of the Scottish Executive, did not re-define what powers were devolved to it.

    Tony Blair (The Founding Father) referred it to as being on a par with an English Parish Council after all.

  304. Camz says:

    You had far further to travel, and presumably had to find accommodation in the area, while the other party lived near(er) the court.

    In that sense, there’s no way the other party’s costs should be higher.

    The other party instigated this case, and as you were not found to be a homophobe, it should not be your cost.

    Hope your lawyer can get the judge to see all that, whatever happens. Scottish courts are not inclined to award excessive costs, unless there are very unusual circumstances. The other party would have to pull out a lot of reasoning to get excessive costs. Even at Scottish politician rates, 2-3 days doesn’t amount to more than a couple of grand of lost wages.

  305. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    “Wow that was quick! Even for Boris. Daily Wail (so it must be true) reporting that police were called to Boris’s home in the night” @Meindevon says at 8:36 pm

    Take it with a pinch of salt as the “Boris supporters tactical voting cost Gove 2nd place” is propagated.

    Remember Wee Mikes Goves missus (Sarah Vine) is a columnist for the “Hurrah for the Black Shirts” Daily Mail!

    A Lady Macbeth character, last Tory leadership contest and this one with Slimy Mike consumed by ambition and spurred to action by his wife like in the Shakespeare play!

  306. Cubby says:

    Callachan@8.50 pm

    “England do not allow people to vote in elections or referendums purely on residency”

    Callachan the English hater using what England does as a justification for his POV. As someone else who posts on Wings likes to say “comedy gold”.

    Perhaps England are wrong Terry old boy. Perhaps this is another area where we can do better. Inclusive not exclusive like England.

  307. Ken500 says:

    Appeal more monies for the Appeal. They will be forth coming. Worth every penny. Get the lying politicians. It might help to keep their lying gobs shut. Not insult people’s intelligence.

    Lay off the trans. They have rights. It’s a storm in a teacup that affect a tiny minority of people. A tiny, tiny proportion. They do no harm.

    Incidental accidents in toilets are higher. Do people more harm and injury. 10,000? Should toilets be banned? Go behind a bush. Or up an alley. Not very practical or hygienic.

  308. Robert Peffers says:

    @Gary45% says:21 June, 2019 at 11:30 pm:

    ” … I would personally go for min10 years living in Scotland.

    Get real! You would have people paying 10 years tax, both Scottish and local council, and deny them a vote?

    You are aware, are you not, that the main burden of tax now is indirect taxation?

    Income tax is unimportant and has been for a long time now. VAT, (on both goods and services), Road Fuel Duty, Alcohol Duty, Betting tax and so on. 10 years of that is a considerable fortune. The American War of Independence was fought upon the premise of, “No taxation without representation”.

    Yet you propose immigrants, you actually contribute greatly to Scotland’s economy should do so for 10 years before getting a say in how the millions they contribute to Scotland are spent.

    In point of fact it is illegal for someone to vote in two or more places. Legally if you register at one address it precludes you from voting at another. You cannot reside at two places at once. Enforcement is all that is needed but you are not going to get the unionists enforcing it and most local councils are still run by unionist parties.

  309. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    “The Scottish Government needs to give itself a bloody good shake about who qualifies to vote in an Independence Referendum.”

    I disagree @manandboy says 21 June, 2019 at 9:16 pm

    I believe that The Scottish Government are going for the:

    “No representation without taxation” to play on the words of the 18th Century American Colonials.

    “You pay Scottish Income Tax if you live in Scotland. It’s paid to the Scottish Government.”

    So MAIN home in Scotland = Scottish Resident = Scottish Tax Payer = Voting rights in Scotland.

    Don’t pay your way here?

    Then no right to vote here!

    Holiday homers etc. will have a choice to pay income tax to the Scottish Exchequer or they don’t get a vote (council, Holyrood, EU, or any Referendums).

    Some rather clever Bills being brought before our Sovereign Parliament lately.


  310. Ken500 says:

    It’s the lawyers rates. £250 an hour. Every minute, e-Mail added in. More for Barristers. The skies the limit. They add in every second.

  311. James Mclean says:

    You have to appeal Stu, if you do I’ll double my donation next years regardless of outcome.

  312. Lynne says:

    (Minor donor)
    I’ve voted not to appeal. Mainly because they would probably point to the successful fundraiser to argue that your reputation clearly hasn’t been harmed… so even with a ‘win’, only token damages would be awarded. There’s also a risk that if you lost, the other side would again claim an inflated figure for the appeal costs.

    Will you know the outcome of the costs hearing before you need to decide whether to submit an appeal? That could make a big difference to the calculations.

  313. Big Del says:

    Bugger it….

    Get paid on Tuesday and will give again and again and again.

    You mean so much to the freedom of our country it is more than worth it Stu…

    thank you…..

  314. Cubby says:


    Tony Blair the Britnat liar is your reference – wow Mr Blimp 7 out of 10 for offensiveness.

    You’ll be quoting the Scottish Daily Mail as your reliable source of info next.

    Are you for real?…….

  315. Davie Oga says:

    Scottish and English people living in Ireland can vote in council and Dail elections but can’t vote for the presidency or in national referendums unless they become citizens. Ireland has the most open franchise in the EU. No other European country allows non citizens to vote in national elections.

    I don’t feel the need to call Irish people racists due to my disenfranchment.

    The “Gold standard” referendum policy is an international aberration and an impediment to independence.

    Of course there is no such thing as a Scottish citizen within Scotland.

    In Ireland, my nationality is Scottish with the Health Executive, Banks, Department of Social Protection, Companies Registration Office, Immigration and Naturalisation etc.

    If Scotland is to be a normal independent country then at some point citizenship will need to be defined and conferred.

    There is no time like the present

  316. Robert Peffers says:

    @Ken500 says: 22 June, 2019 at 12:14 am:

    ” … It’s the lawyers rates. £250 an hour. Every minute, e-Mail added in. More for Barristers. The skies the limit. They add in every second.”

    Mind you, Ken500, if the courtroom was packed with Wings supporters even the most biased union supporting judge would be a wee bit nonplussed and probably think twice in handing down a piece of claptrap as the one who decided the Rev Stu was indeed defamed but it was all right to do so because a silly lesbian defaming him claimed she didn’t understand what was or was not homophobic.


    That decision, (in my honest opinion), was really stupid, totally illogical and quite obviously biased.

  317. cctxt says:

    I don’t know what to advise and fear a Scot media / Unionist frenzy.
    I can see both sides but whatever you decide I’m ready and willing to donate whatever I can whenever is necessary

  318. Col.Blimp IV says:

    Jockanese Wind Talker

    Although I live in Scotland and mostly work here, like a lot of the workforce … my payslips have Made in England stamped all over them.

    I must check and see if I am paying that “Penny for Scotland” John Swinney used to go on about.

    Back when the SNP had the Local Income Tax Policy as an alternative to Poll/Council Tax …The Yoons claimed it would be too expensive and complicated for the tax system to cope with differential Tax rates.

    What has changed?

    Were they lying then … or are they cheating us now?

    Maybe both.

  319. CameronB Brodie says:

    Robert Peffers @11:34pm
    Well I thought it was worth a punt. 🙂

  320. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    manandboy @ 21:16,

    You’re making an incorrect analogy there. The franchise will only be available to those who have permanent residence in Scotland and (according to today’s paper at any rate) “who may be paying taxes”. Not a trivial matter, and certainly not any old casual visitor.

    The devil may be in the detail, but I argued in my submission anyway that residence requirements should be substantive and verified (eg. no holiday home owners), and provided that is so, there is no reason whatever that everyone who is a bona-fide stakeholder in the country should not have a say.

    On the contrary, as a matter of principle they should have a say. “No taxation without representation”, as someone upthread mentioned. Besides, as a pragmatic matter, there is an increasing chance that recent arrivals here will be more likely than ever to support independence. And given what’s happening down there now, that especially applies to those coming from England.

  321. CameronB Brodie says:

    re. voting rights. Time for a bit of professional Brexitology?

    A Critical Perspective on “Associate EU Citizenship”

    Brexit will almost inevitably result in a significant loss of rights, in particular for UK citizens. They will lose their EU citizenship and the EU citizenship acquis will not apply in the UK. To prevent UK citizens from losing EU citizenship, several commentators, including Guy Verhofstadt, the EP Brexit negotiator, have floated the idea of an associate citizenship for UK nationals to safeguard their rights as EU citizens after Brexit. In a recently published Brexit Institute Working Paper, we offer the case against associate EU citizenship. In this blog post, we set out our main concerns with the idea of associate EU citizenship status.

    For a start, it should be evident that an associate EU citizenship status is incompatible with the Treaties. Several proponents suggest differently, however, most prominently on the ground that the Court has said that EU citizenship ‘is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States’. But, of course, EU citizenship has never been fundamental in this sense; it was never meant to live a life independently of Member State nationalities. The Treaties are crystal clear in that regard: EU citizenship is contingent on and ‘additional to’ Member State nationality (Art. 20 TFEU).

    For similar reasons, we reject the idea that stripping Union citizens of their rights would contravene the principle of the full effectiveness of EU law. Such a deprivation of rights can be prevented only by detaching EU citizenship from the nationalities of the Member States or by disentitling Member States to withdraw from the Union. Both options would undermine the full effectiveness of the Treaties, which requires that withdrawal under Article 50 TFEU remains possible and EU citizenship is lost, per Article 20 TFEU, for the nationals of the withdrawing state. On the basis of these legal considerations, we also think that the Court should answer in the negatively the questions, referred to it recently by the Amsterdam District court, of whether withdrawal of the UK from the EU results in the automatic loss of EU citizenship of UK nationals and the rights they derive from that status (English translation)….

  322. Black Donald says:

    I am horrified that anyone can find themselves in so much trouble over just a wee joke tweet. There is something wrong with the law that can bring financial ruin to a good man over this sort of thing, especially when he wins the argument and still loses the case. There is no proportionality in this. I think the law is the actual loser here. It’s certainly losing me.

    Regarding the appeal, I’m finding it hard. I perceive injustice and we need to fight injustice. I don’t want to live in a country where this sort of thing goes on. On a level playing field I would say appeal.

    That said, I have no expectation of a level playing field. In my view, our country is run by people who are comfortable with a Machiavellian approach. They got the right answer in the Eton entrance exam. An approach that says it is justifiable to destroy a good man who is an actual threat to the state. One of many problems with this is that it is they who decide what is a threat, and they who decide what is the state.

    I have no doubt Wings has been targeted. I fear you will likely lose the appeal and be hit with such ruinous costs, the effectiveness of Wings will be severely affected. One would hope the law operates separately from the state, but I have lost confidence in this.

    Court cases are extremely stressful and you need to look after yourself. Stress damages your health.

    So, even though I hate the idea of giving up, I think that is what you should do. I think it is the wisest thing.

    I think we need to concentrate our resources on the battle that we can win with our own efforts. Once we are a nation again, we can work on injustice.

    Just my tuppence worth. I don’t have access to your legal advice and will back any decision you make.

    I will make a commitment here to donate again exactly what I donated in the fundraiser again, should you start another fundraiser to cover your costs. I think it would be a very effective statement if every other Winger could manage to do the same. And it would keep us on course.

    BTW. I had the idea of forgiveness, to spike all the anti Wings propaganda.

    Forgiveness is aff. The other side are behaving so vindictively, they have put any forgiveness off the table.

  323. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    This litigation cannot be idly dismissed as trivial or vexatious. If a reasonable survey of the various public comments which have appeared in the wake of the verdict appears to indicate that the original slur made against the complainant’s character has in fact been subsequently sustained and broadcast by other persons, then the overall judgement has clearly failed to provide satisfaction for the complainant, despite the sheriff’s clear exoneration of the aspect of the complainant’s character at issue.

    If so, “continuing hurt” would seem to me to justify an appeal, for relief of costs if nothing more.

  324. Scozzie says:

    Definitely appeal. Not overly confident you’ll win against the ‘system’ but it’s important us plebs make a stand. In the wise words of Public Enemy – fight the power. Happy to donate for your appeal.

  325. Iannis says:

    If you’re on the line for £100k in costs, then an appeal is worth another £50k.

    If costs are an order of magntitude lower, I would say its not worth the extra money, that’s a lot of Wee Blue Books.

  326. schrodingers cat says:

    The sheriff, unusually, did not make an order for costs. A hearing is now scheduled to decide that, However it’s normally the case that the winning party – Dugdale – can expect to be awarded the bulk of their legal expenses.

    (Though not always. Alert readers may recall the case of one A. Carmichael)


    i’d wait to find out this decision

    if he doesnt award costs to kezia, you need to ask yourself is kezia still worth pursuing? she is out on her ear, a dead parrot etc.
    she reminds me of wendy douglas, i think she will fade into obscurity

    then again, if she does get costs awarded, appealing would ensure she remains fully in the limelight, not something she or any unionist wants

  327. twathater says:

    TBH I have not voted yet due to the fact I am torn , my wife and I had a very traumatic situation re an employment dispute that went on for 3 years and eventually due to the stress and impact on health we decided to let it go , we had a reasonable chance of winning at an employment tribunal but the ongoing cost both in sanity and finances against a LA that had limitless resources made it unsustainable .

    The reason I am being so open and personal is that unless and until you have walked in these shoes it is maybe easy to be gung ho and full of righteous anger but people have to be aware that these situations take over your life , you live them 24/7 365 days a year

    We are ALL basically in agreement that the legal decision was flawed , Kezia was shown up for the shallow individual that she is , she was and is a shill being used by the establishment to undermine and frustrate the WOS website , does anyone actually believe given the current situation us Scots are facing re the MSM that ANY win by Stu would be reported honestly and fairly

    I am in agreement with Pete and Sarah and others upthread some of whom have legal training , I don’t think Stu would have a fair hearing

    I would wait until costs have been decided and if Stu has to pay dugdales costs then I would go for the full appeal , but if costs are down to each individual I would conserve my energy for the battles to come which are more important

    As my granny used to say sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me

  328. Petra says:

    To my mind you’ll do what you want to do Stu. This is just, imo, an exercise in finding out how many people will actually support you financially, regardless of your decision.

    I actually don’t give a damn other than wanting to know how many ”wee books”, and more so the content of them, that you are going to get out there. That’s EXTREMELY important to me. Didn’t we crowdfund last year to get the books out? How much of that money is still in the kitty? A detailed look at your accounts wouldn’t go amiss on here either. You know transparency and all of that. Just saying.

    Just saying too that many of your supporters will become increasingly ”weary” of your behaviour online. What’s up next? That’s not what I donate on here for. My main aim is achieving Independence for Scotland and hey I thought that was your MAIN aim too. Time to cut out the cr*p, Stu, on Wings twitter. Time to focus on your real objective. Independence for Scotland?

  329. Dorothy Devine says:

    Pushing your luck there Petra.

    This is Stu’s blog , Stu’s twitter is separate . If you don’t care to follow it ,then don’t.

  330. Petra says:

    I’m not pushing my luck Dorothy. Far from it. I’m fighting my socks off to live in a country whereby our people, in the here and now and more so the future, are no longer behaving like mindless sheep. I don’t care if this applies to Ruth Davidson or Stu Campbell. I want to know the facts, details, that will ultimately impinge on me: more so Scotland.

    Stu’s Twitter account is NOT separate, imo, from WoS at all Dorothy. What he says on there impacts GREATLY on us on here between one thing and another. Hence us forking out for the comments that he made on Twitter.

    And by the way just to make myself clear I agree that he did not make a homophobic comment (and deserved to to be seen to be innocent) rather one that was ultimately totally crass. A costly ”crass”, imo, and one that I have donated to. One that I will continue to donate to if Stu Campbell decides to take the ”appeal” route. Between this post and my latter I hope this makes my stance clear.

  331. Iain Lawson says:

    I made my contribution and support you appealing the decision.

  332. Colin Alexander says:

    Can Stu afford to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court, if that’s what it takes to get justice? Would that be necessary in this case? Appeal courts are loathe to overturn a ruling unless there is a CLEAR error in law or evidence. They are unwilling to overturn rulings, if it was reasonable for the Sheriff involved to have come to that decision, even if the appeal court would have reached a different decision.

    The important questions are:

    What is the legal advice on the prospects of winning?

    I’m guessing it all hinges on: the Sheriff established as fact that defamation had occurred but ruled that that that was fair comment. Was that an error in law, or an egregious decision, one so outrageously wrong to a reasonable person?

    I donated, but am not convinced it’s worth appealing unless Stu can afford the time, stress and expense of being able to appeal potentially all the way to the Supreme Court. Also, Stu’s counsel would need to be VERY certain of success.

    The case did achieve a lot. It established Stu was defamed. Stu is not a homophobe. Kezia is a defamer.

    Also, Stu is deliberately offensive and controversial at times, in Twitter, so we saw already the court is unsympathetic to Stu claiming offence and damage to reputation.

    So, I’m leaving the decision to Stu and his lawyers. Good luck and may justice be done.

  333. Tatu3 says:

    I donated. Although I am tending to agree with Maria F, Sarah, and Derek Rodgers, I really do hate any sort of injustice so I’m thinking you should maybe appeal.
    However the only folk who really win court cases, IMO, are the lawyers!

  334. Joe says:

    @Petra 3:52am

    So someone has to tick all your ideological boxes before you consider them fit to support independence. Your version of Scottish independence would look like Stalins USSR then? Im economically conservative and anti-EU so guess im really not worthy of your ‘free’ country.

  335. Joe says:

    @Robert Peffers 10:18pm
    I was being very brief. What I meant was ‘get the job done in Scotland’ over jumping onto progressive bandwagons. I hope for the sake of my sanity she hasnt joined the rest of the dipshits on AOC’s concentration camp rhetoric or ill vomit

  336. Joe says:

    Next bout of entertainment from the progressives im getting the popcorn ready for: when scottish feminists eventually meet the reality of 7th century mysoginistic political supremacist religion. The big question for the feminists will be how to blame it on white male capitalist patriarchy? Lols all round to be sure

  337. Simon Curran says:

    Haven’t voted. I do feel the original decision was wrong and can’t get my head around the fact that Dugdale was shown to be in the wrong yet somehow gets away with it. The idea that you can unjustifiably accuse someone in an attempt to damage their reputation and then hide because an excuse of stupidity stinks. However I would judge caution, fight the right battles, win the war, there could be an awful lot at stake over the next year or so, I don’t know how much an appeal would take out of you timewise and emotionally, only you know that. Keep your eye on the prize!

  338. Luigi says:

    Neither yeah nor nay at the mo. Better to wait until the sherif decides on who foots the bill. If its a Carmicheal then that in itself is a great victory. If the establishment continues to play dirty then its a different situation.

  339. Juteman says:

    I said appeal, but i’m having second thoughts.
    The Carmichael case, then yours, makes me think you won’t be allowed to win.
    Walk away from it.

  340. paul says:

    If the newly appointed public intellectual is not awarded costs, will she appeal that decision?
    I voted appeal with the knowledge that the deck is stacked against you.
    Separate fundraiser is a perfectly reasonable request, the whole process,before and after, was conducted in quite conscious bad faith by dugdale and her sponsors.

  341. Lenny Hartley says:

    some folk on here think they run this blog because they contribute a few quid. Do you own a newspaper because you buy it from a newsagents or subscribe to it? No thought not.

  342. Takeourblueback says:

    See what your counsel says, if the odds are better than middling, then appeal!

  343. Capella says:

    @ Petra 3.52 – I don’t agree with you on the issue of Stu’s twitter. Firstly, his joke about Oliver Mundell’s public speaking skills was quite funny – have you ever tried listening to OM speaking in public? It’s excruciating.

    Secondly, his current highlighting of the nonsense that is Self ID and exposing of the deeply misogynistic attitude of some trans activists and lobby groups has done the independence movement a great service IMO. Not least, by forcing the Scottish Government to step back from the brink and reconsider, properly this time.

    For that, he will continue to be vilified by people who oppose Scottish independence and oppose women’s rights. As he said yesterday on twitter, all the right people are outraged. That tells you yoy’re on the right track.

  344. Hamish100 says:

    Petra you said
    “Just saying too that many of your supporters will become increasingly ”weary” of your behaviour online. What’s up next? That’s not what I donate on here for. My main aim is achieving Independence for Scotland and hey I thought that was your MAIN aim too. Time to cut out the cr*p, Stu, on Wings twitter. Time to focus on your real objective. Independence for Scotland?”

    Agree wholeheartedly.
    Although I did donate to Mr Campbell’s fund I do believe it would have have been a lot cheaper and less “bad press” for the whole independence movement ( we were all tagged) if the comments made originally had not been printed. It allowed the unionist media to divert from the main cause.
    Just sayin, and I commented in the same vane at the time.

    Independence is my goal. How many more wee books could we print off as opposed to paying lawyer fees.?

  345. Cubby says:

    Mr Blimp


    “Want to explain what’s bugging Blimp.”

    Well do you want to explain why you posted those nasty comments about me? What’s bugging you to make those comments about me when we have never had any interaction before. An unprovoked attack. Presumably you have your reasons. Care to share them with me?

    If you are unable to explain then I think you should apologise and we can move on.

  346. paul says:

    Disagree wholeheartedly.
    Being judged good boys and girls on the establishment’s terms gets you nowhere.

  347. Capella says:

    Re taking it to the Supreme Court if an appeal fails. I can’t imagine you would get any more justice there.

    Possibly taking it to the ECHR would be more effective. The UK is somewhere like 43rd in the table of press freedom. For an elected politician, with a Daily Record column and frequent access to TV and radio, to demand that a freelance critic should be boycotted i.e. silenced is outrageous. For a sheriff to then fail to award damages to that freelance journalist, perhaps bankrupt him, is equally outrageous.

    The ECHR might want to consider why the UK is so muserably opposed to press freedom?

  348. stuart mctavish says:

    Popularity being key, assuming Petrie and Maxwell do SFA, why not forget about Kez, and the bankrupt labour party (or leave them for another day), and go after FIFA instead.

    A 50K claim not only for defamation, but also losses arising from stealing the most amazing night of young Lee Alexander’s career could have an excellent risk reward ratio – particularly if (when) discovery of VAR evidence from all saved penalties shows the interpretation of rule 14 adopted at the women’s world cup to be incompetent, especially when combined with the goal line technology, and the pre tournament due diligence in the matter to have been non existent.

    .. or use the cash for your own due diligence and finance any and all eventual claims with separate fundraisers that will serve a parallel purpose in determining their relative popularity.

  349. mumsyhugs says:

    This is a head -v- heart situation. There’s lots of heart being shown that we can all identify with. But this requires a cool head weighing up the facts – something Stu is very good at and which we’re going to need in spades in the ongoing indy fight. I think we should leave it to him and his legal team to decide what is the best use of his intellect, time, money and energy, but safe in the knowledge we’ve got his back whatever their decision.

  350. Breeks says:

    Petra says:
    22 June, 2019 at 3:52 am

    …Just saying too that many of your supporters will become increasingly ”weary” of your behaviour online. What’s up next? That’s not what I donate on here for. My main aim is achieving Independence for Scotland and hey I thought that was your MAIN aim too. Time to cut out the cr*p, Stu, on Wings twitter. Time to focus on your real objective. Independence for Scotland?

    Oh the irony. Thanks Petra. I’ll just cut and paste that and send it to Nicola.

  351. sassenach says:

    Many people have asked the question as to whether the ‘costs’ hearing will be held prior to the actual appeal having to be lodged.

    Surely this is key to any decision.

    I hope I am not misunderstanding this (or have missed the answer to the chronology).

  352. Famous15 says:

    At 2.53 am comment from someone who has experienced the stress of the pursuit of justice ,has my vote!

  353. Essexexile says:

    So 90% in favour of an appeal. I must say I find that surprising.
    Heart over head maybe? Understandable.
    Interesting to see so many comments by those from a legal background, or personal experience of court cases (me too!), advising against an appeal.
    In middle management wankerspeak it could be viewed as a simple exercise in resource management. If the Rev’s fighting on two fronts he’s bound to be less effective. Fwiw, during the year or so that I was involved in legal proceedings relating to a previous business, I struggled to focus on my day job and wasn’t exactly Mr Family man of the year either.
    The legal advice I had indicated a very high chance of winning, which we did but it’s always felt like a lost year of my life in retrospect.
    Anyway, the Rev already has the experience of the case Vs Dugdale to help him decide. In my view, how it potentially affects him is much more important than whether he wins or not.

  354. BJ says:

    Stuart mctavish 8:30

    I’m happy to donate even if only in a very small way, I do it because this site is the best there is at highlighting the MSM inaccuracies especially towards politics in Scotland but can you tell me why I would come on here to support or donate to anything regarding football?

  355. Tony O"neill says:

    Hi Stu, don’t waste any more blood or treasure on this yoons distraction, I ken it really irks. Only the lawyers will win, plus the uncle tams in the alleged Scottish legal system won’t let you win.We have bigger fish to fry bro, plus our independence will be the best justice ? of all.

  356. stuart mctavish says:

    @BJ – Tried to cover popularity and the bare financial reality aspect in my post(s) but as Bill Shankly said far better than I, its way more important than that:

  357. A C Bruce says:

    Looks like someone upthread wants the blog site owner to live his life according to how the poster wants him to live it. Acting/writing in a manner the poster thinks is acceptable. I doubt the poster would want to live life according to someone else’s rules. Absurd notion.

    It was a joke and very funny too. I’ve often heard/read similar and it always raises a chuckle. It was KD’s unwarranted reaction to it that caused the unfolding of events that led to the Court action.

    Being called a homophobe has got to be one of the worst slurs that can be directed at a person. I wouldn’t have let it slide nor should Mr Campbell.

    As I said upthread I support an appeal if it is thought there is a good chance of success but it is up to Mr Campbell and his legal team to make that decision.

    I should have said in my original post that I’m a donor.

  358. Gerry says:

    If someone has defamed you, it’s reasonable that you incur the expense to clarify the issue. KD could have saved that expense with an admission and an apology surely, but chose not to. It’s not as if you went straight to the court,

    I think you have a strong case to appeal.

  359. Boudicca says:

    What you decide to do is up to you. However, as a donor I would like the money donated to go towards more wee books, and also to protecting the site for when indy starts to happen, from the attacks that will inevitably come. I never came across the blue books at the last indyref, so I would like to see as many as possible printed and distributed.

    If you go ahead, I think a separate crowdfunder would be in order. Using the money already donated would lead to yet more criticism from unionists. Keep Wings and Twitter separate. Perception is everything.

    Court cases are stressful as you know, and as I know from experience. The coming indyref is going to be a big battle, and we need all our concentration and mental faculties focussed on that, and not on distractions. I would not like to see you taken to the cleaners, lawyers are always the winners.

  360. Padoir says:

    Stu, as a donor to the fundraiser, I say Appeal because its the right thing to do and because, although I’m no legal expert, it did appear that you could drive a horse and coach through the initial ruling. Also, if it came to it and you lost the appeal, I’d happily triple what I initially put in.

  361. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    “Although I live in Scotland and mostly work here, like a lot of the workforce … my payslips have Made in England stamped all over them.”

    If you don’t have an S at the start of your tax code then you are a tax payer to the English Exchequer and presumably benefiting from progressive Scottish policies like free prescriptions, no Uni fees for your kids etc. @Col.Blimp IV says at 12:34 am

    “What has changed?” you ask?

    The fact that if your MAIN residence is in Scotland (like you seem to say you are) you will HAVE to pay tax to the Scottish Exchequer if you want to vote here.

    So tactical votes from holiday homers, students and those who live in The rUK who gerrymander our democracy in defence of The Precious Union

    And those who live in Scotland and vote BritNat safe in the knowledge that the Scottish Government will insulate them from Westminster austerity while point scoring that the EssEnnPee don’t get their taxes WONT GET A VOTE.

  362. Dan says:

    Re. Scottish Tax Code.
    With the recent income tax changes over the past couple of years, does anyone know what the script is regarding self-employed folk and their tax situation?
    I read somewhere that an individual can notify HMRC they wish to be a Scottish taxpayer, but I don’t see any box on the self-assessment form that covers this matter.

  363. chicmac says:

    Leave it Rev.

    You won, you cleared your name.

    If money is lost, that will buy more indy converts than it loses and can be replaced.

    If Dugdale is pursued that will lose more indy support than it gains.

    We need you full focus and energy for what is to come.

  364. Joseph Tierney says:

    As much as admire your tenacity and the strength of your argument in the original case – rose tinted glasses, perhaps – I reckon you should let this go. I would happily contribute towards a costs fund but I see little prospect of outright victory, just more opprobrium being heaped on you and the Yes movement in general. Big picture. This fight is done, you were vindicated, move on. In your interview with AS he mentioned the distraction of Twitter outbursts from the clinical some times lyrical analysis of WoS blogs, this is where you do the most good. One caveat, I’ve no idea what it is to be vilified in a Parliament and through national media so the hurt may be too intense to let go so I would understand if you went for it.

  365. Graham Paterson says:

    I think you should leave it. You’ve achieved the main objective to clear your name: The press cannot call you a homophobe.
    Further action against Kezia Dugdale could be counterproductive, she cuts a sympathetic figure among unaligned and ex-labour voters. Might be seen as harassing her.
    I also doubt the establishment will allow you to win any more than you have.
    Move on, keep your eyes on the prize.

  366. Clive scott says:

    Appeal if your legal advice is 60/40 prospect of success.

  367. Gary says:

    DO what WIlliam Wallace would have done!! (with out the violence of course) 🙂

  368. Alex McMahon says:

    If there’s a chance of success (fair to middling would be my level of risk); go for it. I didn’t put separate money in for the court case last time, but put large-ish amounts in for the last two year’s funding calls (smaller amounts in previous years).

    (*) I would happily put in a bit extra to allow Stuart another pop at the system. Quite a lot of the Wingers would probably be up for this.

    (*) look a paragraph break, no hammers!

  369. Mac says:

    There are a number of assumptions (15) that can be made:

    1. Dugdale needs the court costs paid. And is likely, to be awarded the majority of costs on the basis that she won.

    2. For all the funding transparency on WOS, you may be assured that Dugdale has some quiet backers. Some names we could probably make a guess.

    3. The Sheriff was informally influenced on the original outcome by quiet discussions behind the scenes. It was thought through carefully. ‘…a balanced verdict…’

    4. Dugdale will not want this to continue to appeal. The noisier it is, the more uncomfortable it is for her. There will be University Students who will measure her on this legacy of own stupidity.

    5. Cost Benefit Analysis says the risk versus the return are worth pursuing via an appeal

    6. The ideal scenario for Dugdale and the Establishment is for WOS to get stuck with the costs and for no appeal to happen. That will really confirm a ‘Win’ in their eyes.

    7. The Establishment view WOS as one of the top independence bloggers targets. They know that WOS makes a difference.

    8. Dugdale, Davidson, Torrence… oh no need to name them all… Let’s just say that there is a long long list of Unionists who read WOS, but will never admit it.

    9. MI5 plus Westminster anti-Scottish Independence committee review everything published on WOS. Wings is considered a subversive threat to the security of the UK.

    10. The Westminster major parties, consider Labour and Tory politicians in Scotland as pawns to be used to beat the SNP and the YES movement generally. And they care little for people like Dugdale or Davidson, but they do want to quell uprising in Scotland.

    11. The defamation law is already outdated and waiting for new precedents to be set. The original verdict is ‘instinctively’ wrong for the majority of intelligent people.

    12. WOS is a fighting Website. It’s tone is necessarily strident. As I said before, Wings is the non-violent guerrilla organisation. Attack where it hurts the most. And way faster than any political party acting politically correct.

    13. An appeal is not an attack on Dugdale. She is unimportant. An appeal is standing up to the Establishment and the bias of the MSM.

    14. The resultant PR for WOS is excellent. People will visit. Some will stay. Some will convert.

    15. Stu is marmite, and pugilist, so the only way forward for WOS is to fight. Stu’s ability to dissect lies, use logic and bring clarity to the detail of the issues are the skills needed in court and something that Dugdale has none of.

  370. Tam the Bam. says:

    Donor… go for it Stu.

  371. Graham A Fordyce says:

    A just outcome would be no award of expenses in either side’s favour.

  372. Geoff Bush says:

    Logically I would say Appeal
    Financially I will definitely donate again
    Focus ? If you have the energy to appeal as well as to continue and likely ramp up core activity then go for it, if not then focus on the key task

  373. gerry parker says:

    If you have the time and the energy- go for it. I’m happy to continue donating and would donate more to have this matter examined again.

  374. Fionan says:

    Dan 11.18am

    I am registered self-employed though I haven’t actually taken on contracts in the past few years due to ill-health/disability and haven’t been liable for tax. I never registered anywhere as a Scottish taxpayer, but my P60s this year from the small pensions I live on, and for ESA which is taxable, each had the S added to the tax code, so I imagine HMRC just designates you as a Scottish taxpayer according to your home address or your business address.

    Perhaps if there is any ambiguity about where you should pay tax, you would just phone HMRC to discuss the situation and they would keep you right.

  375. Jim McIntosh says:

    I say appeal. Tie them up in court. I don’t even care if you lose, because if you do all it does is highlight to a bigger audience how corrupt the current system is. If (hopefully) it means you need additional funds to print out WBB2 later this year I’m sure most of us will chip in again. I certainly will.

  376. Jim McIntosh says:

    Defer to your legal council. TBH I don’t even care if you lose, because if you do all it does is highlight to a bigger audience how corrupt the current system is. If (hopefully) it means you need additional funds to print out WBB2 later this year I’m sure most of us will chip in again. I certainly will.

  377. Alan says:

    I donated, not a lot but it was all I could afford at the time. I say appeal, she and the poltical class like her should not get away with impunity. I’ll donate more in future when it is needed. Although I do agree with other comments here about your mental health and valuable time. Happy to follow your judgment whatever you eventually decide.

  378. Hugh Wallace says:

    I donated & I say appeal. I’ll donate again if you lose.

    As others have already stated, this judgement was a travesty & I think that accepting it lets it become precedence and that, too, would be a travesty.

  379. Dan says:

    Polls closed before I voted but it matters little as it appears 90% are for appealing.
    Would have preferred if there was clarity from the hearing on the court costs allocation before deciding on whether to appeal or not.

    This year’s fund raiser did state:

    Any money you send us will be split as usual between running costs, commissioning polls, a wage for myself and contributors like our magnificent near-weekly cartoonist Chris Cairns, and the building up of the Wings Fighting Fund with the aim of printing a million-plus copies of a new Wee Blue Book when a second referendum comes along, along with other major secret campaigning projects we’re working on.

    Some will also have to be used in respect of our court case against Kezia Dugdale, either to pay costs or to file an appeal against the judgement, but that decision will only be taken after consultation with readers.

    It did state “some” will be used for the court case, not potentially all.
    Can I ask what the status of Wings war chest is regarding the ability to put out the 1 million WBB 2.0s? Last year’s fundraiser was also accruing funds for this purpose. If £1 is 4 WBBs it’ll require £250K to do that.
    Maybe another legal fund for topping up the legal side could be setup to keep the two aspects separate as opinion differs on best way forward.

    My preference would be for Wings to concentrate on the most Indy beneficial use of its resources (both time and monies).
    The media will spin any result in favour of the Establishment anyway, so is prolonging the fuel that allows them and Kezia to milk this both in ongoing publicity and potentially our cash for longer really worth more than getting on with other more productive plans?
    Performing under the stress and anxiety of a legal case for however long it might drag on must be a hindrance on a personal level, when compared to riding the wave of positivity of cracking on with projects unencumbered by such concerns.

  380. Hamish100 says:

    Jim McIntosh says:
    22 June, 2019 at 3:13 pm
    I say appeal. Tie them up in court. I don’t even care if you lose, because if you do all it does is highlight to a bigger audience how corrupt the current system is.”

    Silly comment – to lose would be promoted as a Unionist win. The Express, Herald, Scotsman, Courier, DR, Mirror, Times, Torygraph, Sun etc will not report how corrupt the system is. They are the Establishment. Totally biased.

    Always concerned where somebody eggs on someone in a fight then will disappear when the wrong result happens.
    Personally it is nice of the Rev to ask our opinion but it is really for him to decide. As I posted before by writing the comments concerned as some witty riposte it backfired although it was not homophobic. Waste of good money all round.

  381. Dan says:


    I’ve had a look through my tax returns but can only see a UTR (unique tax reference) number which doesn’t have an S. Will have to chase this up further but thought it of interest to ask on here so others might check their own tax codes.

    Unfortunately my last few annual tax returns have all had to be different for various reasons… Every time HMRC has made a mistake and they barely seem to know their own procedures.
    It’s such a pain not having local tax offices anymore where you could simply go in and speak to someone as you handed in the forms.
    Last year HMRC sent out letters stating that folk had missed the deadline for submitting written tax returns even if they had been sent in time. It seems whoever was in control of the sending out the missed deadline letters had not taken into account and removed the names of all the returns that had been received but had not yet been processed.
    How many hours did that absorb of people having to worry that their return had been lost and trying to phone in and clarify the situation. Took me over 2 hours of being on hold to eventually find out it was HMRC’s screw up.

  382. CyberMidgie says:

    I wasn’t happy with the verdict, because people should not be able to throw random smears around without any basis in fact, then get away with it as “opinion” or “fair comment”.

    However, I deliberately didn’t vote, because I’m not the one who’d be letting himself in for the stress and risk of continuing the court case.

    Rev, you can apply my donations as you see fit. I’m happy to trust your judgement and I’ll back you either way.

    If you do decide to continue the case and you need another fundraiser, say in six months, I’ll try to contribute.

  383. Steve Williams says:

    Appeal, we’re all behind you.

  384. Col.Blimp IV says:

    Cubby says:
    22 June, 2019 at 8:15 am
    Mr Blimp

    “…Well do you want to explain why you posted those nasty comments about me?…”

    It is like this, Cubby – I have been on a five or six year sabbatical from political websites, only arriving here a few weeks ago for the very first time, I had heard some good revues about it.

    Expecting to see, witty and incisive comment on the issues and personalities of the day, discussions about policy and tactics, helpful and interesting facts and links, ding-dongs between Cybernats and Britbots etc.

    What did I find?

    Vitriolic knee jerk denunciation of all things Brexit and everyone Tory.

    Fawning epistles to St Stu.

    Rebukes galore for anyone who’s opinion deviated from the SNP party line.

    And a cabal who think it their sacred duty to weed out closet Unionists on evidence so flimsy that it would make a 17th Century Salem Magistrate blush.

    Forgive me if I erroneously placed you in the above category, if I did, it would make me no better than those I sought to condemn.

  385. CameronB Brodie says:

    Col.Blimp IV
    This site attracts a lot who are new to political discource, as well as those hostile to the site’s purpose. You’re not forgetting the significance of context, are you?

    Tory philosophy rejects natural law (see the full-English Brexit) and their policies are intensely anti-social (see austerity). Tories are not conservative, they are a hop, skip and jump away from full-fat fascists. Why would they deserve not to be traduced.

  386. Cubby says:

    Mr Blimp@7.04pm

    I commend you for taking the time to reply and explain your concerns and disappointments about the Wings site.

    You are entitled to your opinion on the merits of the site . You aren’t the first to pitch up and shortly start making negative comments about the site. However your comments were direct personal abuse at me and sorry but your explanation does not seem to me to give you any justified cause for the comments that you fired in my direction. It is not my site and I certainly take no responsibility for the quality of the posts btl or above the line. You do not quote any posts of mine that give rise to you being justified in your nasty comments.

    I am my own person. I am not a member of a cabal. I am afraid you are making judgements based on what you find in a short period of time. Some posters have been exchanging posts for years and know who they are dealing with – good and bad. I would have thought a person of average intelligence would have appreciated this possibility and shown some prudence before slinging off insults of a particularly nasty nature. It would appear you have no evidence never mind “evidence so flimsy”.

    I will accept your last paragraph as an apology and close the matter.

  387. Col.Blimp IV says:

    CameronB Brodie

    Old habits I suppose, I never bought into the practice some nationalists had of vilifying the Tories as if they were somehow responsible for all of Scotland’s ills.

    For my money the real culprits were and are the Labour Party’s Scottish branch, who for decades have been prepared to put up with just about anything the Tories could throw at us, deluding themselves (and until recently, the electorate) that all would be put right by the next UK Labour government … and when that didn’t work out – the one after,
    all the way from JR McDonald to Jeremy Corbyn.

    We don’t need to convince people that voting Tory is not in their best interests but we do need to make sure that they don’t think that voting Labour is, or for that matter that the Lib-Dems are some kind of viable alternative.

    A historical footnote:

    When Thatchers gang were about to introduce the Poll Tax, they held a meting of the Scottish Grand Committee (all of the Scottish MP’s), at the old Royal High School. One after another the majority Labour MP’s stood up and spoke vehemently against this inequitable abomination.

    Donald Stewart of the SNP then proposed that the committee hold a vote, to demonstrate the scale of the opposition to this Tax from the elected representatives of the people of Scotland … he was abruptly and abusively shouted down by the Labour MP’s as the Tories looked on, smiling.

    The largely nationalist audience in the balcony hurled abuse and other stuff at the impostors below and the cops carted the worst of the offenders off to jail.

    One of whom was an SNP Councillor, who later along with the current Leader of the SNP group at Westminster, publicly resigned from the SNP and joined the Labour Party, who they reckoned was better placed to save Scotland from the ravages of Thatcherism.

  388. Col.Blimp IV says:


    It was T Callaghan you were having a go at, in tandem with Geeo who seems to like accusing me and others of being fifth columnists.

    Looking in from the outside (with no knowledge of previous form) it appears petty and somewhat distasteful.

    In my previous experience of such forums it was fairly easy to work out who was wearing a black hat and nationalists who had slightly aberrant views were usually tolerated and reasoned with rather than attacked.

    Even crazies who pretended they were thickos to waste your time and nutcases who made wild conspiracy-type accusations were largely humoured, though sometimes ridiculed.

    In fact it was on occasion possible to be civil to even the most fanatical of unionist maniacs, the subject of this thread being no exception.

  389. CameronB Brodie says:

    Col.Blimp IV
    I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and take it you conflate nationalism and patriotism, through simple error.

  390. Robert says:

    As to the appeal, my gut feeling is that it’s not worth it. There too much to loose, and too much distraction from what’s important. Ms Dugdale is no longer important.

  391. Alan Mackintosh says:

    I voted appeal and am a donor. If your legal advice is such that you are minded to appeal then I am with you if you require more. As others have said there are sound reasons for both options, but like I said regardless of the poll, follow your given advice

  392. Cubby says:

    Mr Blimp@11.01pm

    I thought you had apologised, I accepted your apology and I thought we were leaving it behind us but NO you post your comments at 11.01pm.

    “In tandem with Geeo” – right so you are challenging me about this. I told you I am my own person. I am not in tandem or a cabal. I tried to deal with this in a civil fashion with you but you are the person trying to make it uncivil even though your post talks about being civil. Mr Blimp you are coming across as a hypocrite.

    You have no idea what has transpired between Callachan and myself but you jump right in to offend and shit stir. But you talk about being civil. Read your initial post again and your comments directed to me – civil in your mind?….

    “Nationalists who had slightly aberrant views” – British Nationalists Scottish nationalists French nationalists Irish nationalists who are you referring to? If you are referring to Callachan he posts anti English bigotry/racist comments. Is it just “fruity” language to you?

    Simple question for you – are you standing by your original uncivil comments or apologising – yes or no will suffice.

    PS it’s Callachan not Callaghan – he doesn’t like his name misspelt. He might take offence.

  393. Shug says:

    If she wins again you lose the money and they get another batch of headlines

    Why not issue a press release saying

    Her comments were misplaced and defamed you
    As confirmed by the sheriff

    You forgive her

    Save the money for indyref2
    She is history and will not be remembered as anything but a failure and embarrassment to her party

  394. Shug says:

    Forgiveness will choke the unionists

  395. cynicalHighlander says:

    Donor appeal as that was unjust

  396. Col.Blimp IV says:

    CameronB Brodie

    The way I see it is that others conflate Nationalism with Imperialism and/or fascism.

    Patriots can be found in all three camps and outwith them all.

    My idea of a Nationalist is of a selfless, pure of heart, righter of ancient wrongs … seen any malevolent windmills lately.

  397. Col.Blimp IV says:

    Cubby says

    My beef was with Geeo, the battle I butted into (uninvited) concerned T C and as you were also a combatant I fired off a couple of salvos in your direction for good measure.

    As no formal declaration of war had been made either by you or myself, this was wholly without justification and thoroughly reprehensible.

    I therefore bow my head in shame and promise never to act so recklessly towards you, or indeed any other poster in the future.

    I am Sir Yours

    Col Blimp IV

  398. Kenny J says:

    As a donor since late 2013, I think, with a break from it all from after May’s GE till not long ago because I was mentally f*****.
    What’s the options.
    Wait until the Sheriff awards costs. Hope he splits them equitably. If he does, leave it.
    But, if he awards costs to Dugdale, and her backers, appeal.
    Whats to lose, 50K.
    I say, if it goes against you, and if your brief thinks you have a fighting chance, if you think you are up to it, I say go for it.
    I think the verdict was politically motivated, was one small battle in this war, as with Carmicheal, as is Grouse Beater, as is Wightman. I contributed to all. Although Wightman has blown my trust with his defence of Dugdale. So tough. He appears Not to be a fan of the good Rev.

    Would it be possible to get a group of informal opinions from other Yessers in the legal profession. I’m thinking of J. Cherry, A. Tickell, there must be lots of others. The Wisdom of Crowds.
    PS. I’ve added a J to the name because I see there is another Kenny has posted. Not that I do much.

  399. Cubby says:

    Mr Blimp@8.18pm

    As I said I don’t like people lumping me in with other posters.

    A simple I got it wrong would have done. No need for all the other stuff.

    As far as Callachan is concerned we go back a long way. He started the personal abuse because he could not stand being asked questions he couldn’t answer. He is an anti English bigot/ racist – if you are of the same opinion and express it on Wings then expect feedback.

    A lot of people have a beef with Geeo. It’s not unusual but he usually has good reason for creating a beef in the first place.

  400. Susan Forrest says:


    It was a terrible decision

    I will donate again if necessary for those lovely wee blue bookie things

    Appeal & be damned

  401. CameronB Brodie says:

    Col.Blimp IV
    “… seen any malevolent windmills lately”
    A few but then I’m a bit of a POCO rad-fem. 😉

    As far as I understand things, fascism is an evolution of imperialism and is supported by those who favour a strong sense of cultural nationalism, which is typically chauvinistic and racialist in nature (see (white) British nationalism and the full-English Brexit).

    Remember, Scottish ‘nationalism’ supports multi-cultural tolerance. British “nationalism”, not so much (see (white) British nationalism and the full-English Brexit). 😉

    Nationalism versus patriotism, or the floating border? National identification and ethnic exclusion in post-communist Bulgaria


    The paper deals with different aspects of national identification and their relations to ethnic exclusion in post-communist Bulgaria. The emphasis is placed on theoretical approaches that refer to nationalism as a social (collective) identity and its effects on specific exclusionary practices and individual attitudes.

    This specific theoretical framework is also used as a source for drawing a conceptual model that is subsequently tested on empirical data for Bulgaria for two time points: 1995 and 2003. The data for the analysis is gathered within the framework of the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) “National Identity”.

    In order to analyse changes over time a simultaneous multiple group comparison between both samples is conducted by applying Structural Equation Modelling. The empirical examination shows that the concepts of patriotism and nationalism as individual attitudes toward the nation could be plausibly differentiated for Bulgaria, yet not with regard to their relationship with chauvinism.

    Both nationalistic and patriotic sentiments are positively related to chauvinistic attitudes, a result, which seems to contradict the general theoretical assumptions. The question whether one can distinguish between ‘patriotism’ as the less extreme and ‘nationalism’ as the ‘blind’ and uncritical form of individuals’ attachment to the nation is addressed.

    Bulgaria, nationalism, patriotism, chauvinism, ethnic exclusion, social distance, minority rights, structural equation modelling, ISSP

  402. hopper69 says:


  403. hopper69 says:


  404. tarisgal says:

    I donated & voted appeal. BUT… after reading all the comments, and getting thoughts other than my first ‘red-haired’ natural inclination to go for her (Dugdale’s) throat, I’ve had time to calm down and think more rationally… I think…

    To be honest, I hate the idea of Dugdale getting the damages award. That smacks of the judge telling you you weren’t a homophobe, Dugdale didn’t know what she was saying – then rubbing your nose in it and rewarding her and giving her the award for being stupid. My first inclination ‘That’s NOT ON’! Then reading that your Rep and hers could not come to a compromise on the award seems to me that she WANTS YOUR MONEY! It seems she isn’t willing to settle at paying her own costs but seems determined to see that YOU pay it ALL. And that too doesn’t seem right, given she only won on a technicality (as I see it).

    However, in my view, you won. You took her to court to defend yourself against defamation – and you won. You know it, we know it and the rest of Scotland knows it. Dugdale knows it, the labour party know it, the newspaper taboids know it. They’re just NOT going to say so! They’re always going to say she won – BUT IT’S THE UNIONISTS. And to be honest, I really don’t care what they think.

    So… my head is saying ‘just leave them to it. Whichever way an appeal goes, they will always use the original stick (the original ruling) to beat you with & call you the ‘loser.’ So why bother giving the courts more money, for all the real difference it will make. You have other excellent uses for your time, and for the funds.

    Were it I in your position, I’d wait till the court awards costs. If the court says ‘each pays their own’, I do believe I’d leave it there. Anything else just seems a waste of your life, your energy & your sanity. If she gets the full award, I think I might be tempted to appeal IF your legal team were pretty certain to win. I might be TEMPTED… but I’m not sure even that would tempt me to go for it now.

    I think some folks here are right. The indy fight is going to get dirty & the ‘other side’ know what your WBBs did last time. They KNOW your books were a deciding factor for many people turning to YES. I believe its possible that they’ll want to stop you producing more this time. You said it yourself on the RT Interview – you want to print out 4 times as many this time. I’ve no doubt the unionists have seen that as a real threat! They’ll try to prevent your having the funds to do that. So I’m thinking… PICK YOUR BATTLES. Fundamentally you did what you set out to do – you proved you were NOT a homophobe and everyone now knows that. Case dismissed. Time now perhaps to just give your time, energy & your head to finishing & getting those books printed.

    You’re a smart cookie, though. I’m sure, in conjunction with your legal team, you’ll do what you think works best for you. As it should be. *thumbs up emoji*

  405. CaptainHaddock says:

    It a tricky one but I’m moved to say that if you’re not picking up any of Kezia’s costs (a big if) – then its a case of focusing your time and energy on the preparation for IndyRef2 and continuing to do what you do.

    If however you are being extorted for costs from Kezia’s team then the drawbacks of progressing an appeal start to look diminished – If you’re being gouged for costs anyway you may as well have a crack.

    As ever, the decision is yours to make.

  406. Ed Freeman says:

    A family emergency meant that I could not and cannot contribute to the appeal just ending, but I will definitely cough up if needed for (or after) a court action. Consider this a pledge, even if it can’t be for very many £££.

  407. Ed Freeman says:

    A family emergency meant that I could not and cannot contribute to the appeal just ending, but I will definitely cough up if needed for (or after) a court action. Consider this a pledge, even if it can’t be for very many £££.

    Do let us know the result of the taxation hearing.

  408. Sarah says:

    The wording could be affecting the votes.

    The No appeal option could say “No, accept the verdict and might have to pay some/all her costs”.

  409. Hugh Keith says:

    If you have a reasonable chance of winning an appeal then you should.

    It makes no sense to me that she could defame you but win the case because she believed what she said was true. Sorry but belief should have nothing to do with it, a fact is a fact and defamation is defamation, end of story. You also have to consider her position as a political leader and a news paper contributor. She must have advisors and lawyers assisting her, if she chose not to use them or ignore them then she should have lost.

  410. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    Right, let’s see if we can catch up with the first batch of queries here.

    Liz g: “Can you say a bit about the potential stress and distraction from the Indy campaign on you? It could not have been easy in that courtroom, and to face it all again must be daunting!”

    Babsp: “My own view is that you should leave it be. The court vindicated you and found that you are not homophobic and that Kezia’s comments were without any factual justification. So the record has been put straight. She was wrong, your character was upheld. Yes, the money is a bit annoying but as far as I understand you have it covered. I’m not sure really what you have to gain and I think your focus and energy are better used in doing what you do best – making the case and challenging the MSM.”

    The last two years have been extremely stressful, in large part because of this case, but an appeal should cause very little distraction to me because the nature of an appeal is that it’s entirely handled by lawyers. I don’t have to be present, I won’t be questioned, I just write the cheque and let them get on with it.

    And “what we have to gain” is potentially keeping enough money in the Fighting Fund to pay for another 750,000 Wee Blue Books, that we’d otherwise have to pay to lawyers. That definitely seems a worthwhile prize.

    Ross: “I’m confused. I thought the judgement was that you won and she didn’t need to pay you damages.”

    No, that’s incorrect. The sheriff made no decision on costs and gave us a chance to reach agreement between ourselves. We’ve been unable to do so. The norm is that costs go to the victor, but as the Carmichael case shows it’s not an absolute.

    Morag: “In this one I believe you have moral right on your side, but that your opponent – being a unionist, Labour, and an (ex) MSP, also a woman and gay and therefore you’re so privileged against her as a heterosexual man and a transphobe to boot – is in the “respectable” seat. After what happened last time I think my money would go on a repeat performance, due to the need to support the respectable party against the maverick outer darkness party.”

    John: “I say don’t appeal as you are appealing against the state. I fear they will use the opportunity to financially ruin you regardless of the merits of your case. You are up against a cable of liars and cheats. Remember the Chagos islanders. After they won in every court the state just said fuck you we own you.”

    This is definitely a concern, but there’s not much we can do about it other than hope and believe in the justice system. However, either way they shouldn’t be able to “financially ruin” us. The Fighting Fund is in a healthy state even if we have to pay out £150K.

    Airchie: “Would we be able to bring a completely separate case against Westminster challenging whether they have the authority to unilaterally block another indy vote? That seems more pressing than anything to do with Dugdale tbh.”

    No, that’s not how that works.

    Travis: “This is a tricky one. Appealing and losing wipes out a huge amount from the fundraiser. It’s a pretty big gamble, having £170k cut down to £20k would be a brutal punch in the gut.”

    Well, by that rationale, if we DON’T take the gamble it gets cut down to £70K anyway.

    Sarah: “So given that you can always point to the fact that the judge DID state that KD defamed you, so you could sue anyone who says different, my vote is to let it lie – do not appeal.”

    Actually one of the quirks of the judgement is that effectively I can’t. By putting a value of £100 on my reputation, it means I couldn’t sue anyone else (including Dugdale) who repeated the allegations, because even when I won – which I would – it’d cost me a lot more than £100 in unrecoverable expenses, so I’d be shooting myself (and more to the point, the Fighting Fund) in the foot every time.

    crisiscult: “I’ve skimmed over a few of the comments and if I’m getting this correct, the third option (not in the poll) is to decide on appeal after the costs hearing. Have I got that right as an option?”

    panda paws: “Do you need to decide on whether to appeal before the costs hearing?”

    pabroon74: “At the hearing for costs, since the sheriff said she did defame Rev Stu, but it was fair comment, then while I think that’s a rubbish verdict, if costs are not awarded either way and you both walk away, I think given that hers are much higher – then you wrap it up and get on with more important stuff.”

    This is interesting, because my understanding of the situation has changed since I wrote the post, after clearing up a miscommunication with my lawyer. In fact we HAVE to wait until costs are either agreed or settled by a hearing before we can appeal, because until costs are decided there’s no “final interlocutor” in the case to actually appeal against. So if the costs judgement is very surprising in either direction we may re-poll.

    John Gibson: “Appeal – but I’d prefer a second crowdfund for the purpose of your legal costs, I feel the standard one is to fund what you do already.”

    As the article says, there should be enough in the Fighting Fund to cover both, and the fundraiser did explicitly say it included coverage of the legal costs.

    Dr Jim: “You know that if you do this Stuart it will be in every newspaper and all over TV that you are waging a personal war against Kezia Dugdale funded by Independence supporters”

    As opposed to the fair, measured, accurate and balanced coverage we get at the moment, you mean? 😀

  411. muzzy says:

    I voted to not appeal as £50,000.00 is no small sum and think of the extra wee blue books that could be produced with that. I release I contribute a small amount in the grand total and I do totally agree that She was way out of line accusing you of that, But due to the nature of what we are trying to achieve and how hard the establishment with try and stop that, I fear that this will not the last time the Rev is portrayed in a bad light to weaken the Yes Movement which is why I think the appeal money should go to other ways of getting the message across maybe into advertising the website again or as I said above more wee blue books.

  412. avalanche says:

    So you appeal. Fair enough seems to be 90% backing. Not saying you wouldn’t win at appeal either.

    My question –

    Lets say you initially win your appeal. I am presuming this is to the new Sheriff Court Appeals Court. I see from their website that if the case has an important point of principle they would allow a further appeal to the Inner House. That’s if they haven’t already remitted it there.
    Link –

    Let’s Presume Ms Dugdale won’t let it lie, and if she loses then she simply appeals further up the chain.

    Does that mean that the case could be appealed to (1) the SCAC (2) The Inner House (3) the UK Supreme Court ?

    That’s suddently turning into a fairly hefty funding issue.

    I’d maybe be revising these figures upwards here as if I’m right that this appeal would not necessarily be final and you might end up in the situation where you both keep appealing simply as no one can afford to be left with the expenses parcel once the music stops.

  413. Petra says:

    Good point Avalanche. One which Stu must be conversant with if his legal team is worth their salt.

    I don’t know about Stu’s case but I remember being over the moon when I (we) won a case at the Employment Tribunal in Glasgow to then find that the other side could appeal the decision. The case was then taken to the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal where I (we) won again. The other side appealed that decision and the case then went to the Court of Session and ultimately the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court). I (we) lost there (and had to pay costs), but we could have appealed and taken it to Europe where we were told that we would have had a good chance of winning, however as you say the costs had become astronomical and the fear factor kicked in as we didn’t have any financial backing, such as Unions or crowdfunders. Defamation cases? Different laws so I’ve got no idea.

  414. Petra says:

    I’ve just noticed your post at 11:51am, Stu. Are you saying that if you have to fork out £150,000 one million wee blue books will still be distributed?

  415. IAB says:

    Crowdfund for the appeal and keep it separate from the site

  416. Sarah says:

    Stuart, do you know the date of the costs hearing? Just so I know when to start worrying…

  417. Sheena says:

    Absolutely no legal expertise but going by the odd previous judgement, my gut feeling is that the appeal will result in both being asked to pay their own costs. Not saying that’s fair and some judges may completely ignore political/public consequences of their decision and judge it on legality alone.

  418. Jim Arnott says:

    Just returned from holiday hence tardy response.

    Stuart, I haven’t the necessary legal nouce to advise on the best way forward except to say wait for the outcome of the costs hearing.

    I contributed three times to the Crowdfunder as well as setting up a monthly DD to support your efforts towards securing Independence. If it in any way helps in you reaching your decision, be assured I would do the same again if it was required to support any appeals you decide are needed.

    Hope in some small way this helps you make what must be a very difficult judgement.

  419. Eddie Macdonald says:

    Stuart, as a donor, I would say go for the appeal, do what you think is the right thing to do …. my wife and I are pensioners, but dammit, this is a point of priciple and I will donate again, and again … whatever it takes.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top