The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The Screw

Posted on July 08, 2019 by

We’ve just received the verdict in the hearing over costs in our court case against Kezia Dugdale, and it’s an incomprehensible one. The sheriff has awarded costs in full to Dugdale, plus a 50% “uplift” mainly on the grounds of the “complexity” of the case, despite Dugdale having employed the services of perhaps Scotland’s highest-paid specialist defamation QC.

Full costs were awarded despite the sheriff having found that the core complaint on which the case was brought – namely that Dugdale had unjustly defamed me with a damaging and wholly false claim that I was a homophobe – was in fact wholly upheld, and that I had indeed been so defamed.

No explanation was given with regard to the supposed complexities from which the uplift arose. The case was in fact a quite straightforward one in defamation terms: an allegation was made, no supporting facts were provided for it and it was found to be entirely false, but the defender was excused liability on the grounds of honest belief – despite being unable to provide the sheriff with any rational basis for that belief.

That’s just about the bare minimum of complexity that could ever possibly exist in a defamation case, and readers might understandably feel that it ought to have been well within the normal skill set of the defender’s representatives, particularly given that the document comprising the entire core of the case was a single tweet of less than 140 characters.

Apparently if you’re a lawyer who’s been paid tens of thousands of pounds to debate a single tweet you also deserve a 50% bonus by way of extra compensation for all the stress and trauma of, um, doing your normal job.

Kezia Dugdale at no point before, during or after the case apologised for or withdrew her remarks – indeed, after our initial complaint she repeated and expanded them, leaving us with no remedy but to pursue the matter in court, and to compete as best we could with the astronomical sums spent on Dugdale’s defence by external parties and approved by the court even though the sum being sued for was relatively modest.

We don’t yet have a final bill, but we expect it to be in the rough vicinity of £100,000 as previously advised. We’ve already polled readers on their desired response in that event, and received an overwhelming majority of 9:1 in favour of filing an appeal against the substantive judgement on the case.

(The verdict on expenses cannot in practice be appealed itself, but were a substantive appeal to be successful the expenses verdict would automatically be overturned.)

We intend to carry out that decision, but any further views are welcomed.

Print Friendly

    651 to “The Screw”

    1. wullie says:

      Martin Niemoller on opposing Nazism, said “First they came for the Communists
      And I did not speak out
      Because I was not a Communist
      Then they came for the Socialists
      And I did not speak out
      Because I was not a Socialist
      Then they came for the trade unionists
      And I did not speak out
      Because I was not a trade unionist
      Then they came for the Jews
      And I did not speak out
      Because I was not a Jew
      Then they came for me
      And there was no one left
      To speak out for me.

      We are on our own

    2. Dr Jim says:

      27 counties of the EU will be free to speak after the 31st October when the UK is no longer a member state and England’s baw gets kicked into touch

      I’m looking forward to that

    3. Dr Jim says:

      27 countries

    4. PotterThePiper says:

      Crack on with the appeal.
      I’m good for fifty quid.

    5. Morag says:

      I suspect a few quiet words were had between legal parties in the court coffee shop along the lines of “let’s slap down this troublemaker”.

      Actually I think this is very likely. The lengths the legal establishment will go to to protect the person they’ve decided “ought” to win really are a bit of a shocker.

    6. Iain mhor says:

      @call me dave 11:43am

      Underpants man, recalls a video I just watched from Jan 2014.
      About 1 min in he says, with Scottish Independence, the UK would be weakened across every international gathering (IMF G8 etc etc) but nobody asks the obvious question : why? It infers Scotland has an inherent ‘strength, economically, strategically and politically.

      The follow up question expands on that, because Scotland, with its own representation across international bodies, should be in a stronger situation. If the argument is, it would become weaker in isolation, that must be explained and a difficult job that would be – especially from the half of the UK currently pursuing an isolationist strategy.

      Naturally, without Scotland, rUK (England) and the USA would have to pursue the same tactic they did in Iran in 1953.
      Scotland’s Independence won’t be fought and won in a day. We’ll be fighting until we join another Union or League. Whether a Nordic league or EU. Which is why the isolationist Indy supporters are (to me) somewhat naive and is why Indy Scotland in Europe or EFTA (or other) is a thing.

      Scotland has waaay more clout sitting in the North Atlantic seaboard than most people understand.

      http://bit.ly/30xNeMZ

    7. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Stu.,

      Thinking outside the box…

      If you pay Kezia-The-Dim-Defamer’s legal fees (think of this as a game of chess).

      What happens next?

      Wings then raise and REALLY push this issue of GROSS INJUSTICE at Holyrood Justice Committee. That opens a NEW and interesting door.

      Stuart Campbell was defamed and won, but ScotsUnionistLaw flat-earth ruling says he, the winner, pays the losers legal costs plus 50%.

      The Justice Committee then get to study the fact that a winner was ordered to pay a loser’s exhorbitant court fees because the loser was dim and stupid.

      The Justice Committee, aghast at this, ask if Kezia has any understanding of the law or is she genuinely dim enough to qualify for a £150,000 “bung” on the thick-ometer lottery that has become Scots Unionist Law?

      “Yes” Kezia replies, I am dim and stupid. Further questioning and Kez has to confess: “Yes, it is true, I have obtained a university degree in law in 2003”.

      Members of the Holyrood Committee ask further: “and you won th case on the basis that you are stupid, but you have a degree in law and a masters degree in public policy? Ummhhh.

      Kezia then squirms.

      The Justice Committee has SNP MSPs on it so Kezia will not get the easy time that a Unionist Court and the BBC gift her.

      What, may I ask, would the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee make of this? They would be strong and forensic in their questioning.

      Remember also, the Holyrood committees are TELEVISED.

      What a bonus. It is possibly worth coughing up the £150,000 to Kezia’s lawyers as that literally buys you ownership of this massive injustice and won’t that make the Union lawyers end up squirming in the parliamentary proctological Justice Committee scrutinisers?

      WoS would rightly be seen as VERY hard done by and ILL-SERVED by a Scots justice system.

      That ScotsUnionLegal system now REQUIRES a statutory overhaul.

      Or Wings pays £150,000 and another set of legal fees for the appellant process until the final bill reaches £350,000 for what? The Scottish media will spin it Stuart-Bad whatever the result.

      Wings is then pushed to a financially poor place and the chances of any victory, even if the fees are taxed by the law accountant in your favour or any other legal mechanism deployed.

      Rather use the £200,000 additional appellant fees to print hunners of WBB2

    8. Colin Alexander says:

      An indyref will go ahead:

      if the UK State can make certain that an indyref won’t result in independence for Scotland.

      Of course, they can’t be certain, if it’s a clean, fair, democratic process.

      So, either it won’t go ahead or it will be rigged to as large an extent as the UK state think they can get away with.

      And who’s gonnae stop them?

      Ask the Chagos Islanders or Palistinians about UN rulings giving justice.

    9. Terry callachan says:

      To Cubby

      Wrong again cubby old boy.
      I do not hate English people , I don’t know them all never met them all so that’s silly.

      I do hate England for its treatment of Scotland

      You apparently hate people you have never met or spoken to , foolish.

      You are always calling people on here british nationalists or bigots or racists , but it’s your inability to respect other people’s views that causes you to do that , you attack people’s point of view if it differs from yours with accusations of them being a british nationalist or a bigot or a racist .

      I still forgive you calling people British nationalists or bigots or racists when clearly they are not just shows you are not very bright.

      Get well soon

    10. Ottomanboi says:

      An example of England’s ‘soft power’….at $33k a year
      http://www.harrowbeijing.cn

    11. Dan Yell says:

      I wonder what Rev Stu thinks about all the asinine spluttering about establishment stitch-ups from WoS groupies here. He must feel a bit like Andy Millman in Extras, beholden to a loving but dimwitted fanbase.

    12. Iain mhor says:

      I see the beeb site covers the defamation story today.
      Dare I say, it at least does cover the nuances of the case and seems a fair report? No last word snidey opinions from randoms are quoted either, which is also novel.

    13. @Dan Yell,

      naive

      (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement,

      your naivety just shows there are still citizens who need their eyes open to the power of the establishment,

      bless you.

    14. Golfnut says:

      @Iain Mhor.

      Bang on. George Robertson, former SOS for Scotland, Defence Minister and NATO high heid yin, before indyref told an audience in New York( I think) that Scottish Independence would have galactic( or some such word) consequences. Everyone laughed of course, but he was right at the implications for the establishment and Westminster standing in the world.

    15. CameronB Brodie says:

      Terry callachan @ 11:57am
      Best practice is best practice, but who decides what best practice is? And how is best practice interpreted, and by whome? Closer inspection of principles, their interpretation and application, can often identify inconsistencies and contradictions.

      For example, it would appear that the proposed change to the GRA, doesn’t comply with the Yogyakarta Principles itself. Claiming sex-rights by denying one’s biological sex, is inconsistent with “The Right to Bodily and Mental Integrity”, especially with respect to children of woke parents.

      Yogyakarta Principles

      2017 Yogyakarta Principles plus 10

      – The Right to Bodily and Mental Integrity: Principle 32 recognizes a right to bodily and mental integrity, autonomy and self-determination, including a freedom from torture and ill-treatment. It calls for no-one to be subjected to invasive or irreversible medical procedures to modify sex characteristics without their consent unless necessary to prevent urgent and serious harm.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogyakarta_Principles

    16. sassenach says:

      Just watched PMQs and the “chat” before and afterwards…..

      The ‘groper’ got a long stint by virtue of being Boris’ man ( Ross really is a bit weird!), and then in the last few minutes after PMQs we saw that he had gone and there was Dr Phillipa W. – but she was ignored for the next ten minutes , then got a few sentences about the Ambassador to US business.

      Was I wrong to think that this will simply be a way to allow the BBC to claim they DO have SNP guests on their politics shows??? Cynical, moi?

    17. Dan Yell says:

      @Scott Finlayson of course I’m naive, flat-earthers and climate change denialists tell me this all the time. Never mind that I that I openly anticipated the fair comment defence succeeding at the beginning of proceedings. Never mind that the larger part of the incredulity from commenters here at the outcome of the case because they’ve clearly not even bothered to do Wikipedia-level research into Scots Delict law and as a result a judgement that a comment was defamatory but that the speaker wasn’t liable for damages has had a result comparable to a pocket calculator trying to divide by zero. Never mind that the majority of commenters here can’t or won’t understand that allowing writers to call out innuendo and dog-whistles is maybe a bigger issue than one man’s defamation, even if that one man has (regrettably) become an Indy figurehead. I’m the naive one because I don’t think over a centuries worth of sparse caselaw was propounded with screwing over a peevish blogger at the behest of a third-rate politician in mind.

    18. Capella says:

      @ Dan Yell – you’re so clever.

    19. Capella says:

      @ CBB – the Yogyakarta Principles have never been endorsed by the UN. There is no obligation to incorporate them into law.

      The Scottish Government could just shelve them until they have some grasp of the consequences of implementing them. Consequences for women and children’s safety, as I’m sure you are aware – but not everyone is. 🙂

    20. Dan Yell says:

      @Capella your withering dry wit would be better aimed at the many people here eager to part with money for the embarrassing anti-strategy that would be an appeal against the judgement.

    21. Dan Yell says:

      @Capella your withering, dry wit would be better aimed at the many people here eager to part with money for the embarrassing anti-strategy that would be an appeal against the judgement.

    22. Capella says:

      @ Dan Yell – I’ve contributed to the legal fees myself, and will do so again if necessary. Some things are more important to me than money. Truth, freedom of speech, personal integrity, moral integrity and calling out corrupt politicians.

      That’s why I don’t have any money BTW 🙂

    23. Allan Watson says:

      O/T. Interesting article about so called UK by the USA.

      Unionists you need to read this because if Boris gets in the UK is just going to be a toothless lackey of the USA.

      Waken up.

      https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/09/opinions/special-relationship-us-uk-crumbling-bergen/index.html

    24. Dan Yell says:

      @Capella I think it’s probably to be taken as read that I believe funding the appeal serves none of those principles and I’m sorry, though not remotely surprised, that I stand next to no chance of convincing anyone here of this. As I’ve said above, I don’t like Stu but support WoS more generally (I know, I know, concern troll) and believe he should be using funds for other strategies.

    25. Proud Cybernat says:

      @Dan Yell

      Rev’s appeal has been submitted.

    26. Dan Yell says:

      @Proud Cybernat so I’ve read here several times. If leave is given, I am certain he will lose.

    27. Gfaetheblock says:

      Dan yell @ 3.27

      You have summed up my thoughts more eloquently than I could do myself.

      This whole case has been bonkers from start to finish (whenever that is)

    28. ronnie anderson says:

      DanYell you are right you will convince no one on here BTW what other strategies should funds be used for .

    29. Dan Yell says:

      @ronnie anderson WBB spinoffs that focus on the civic – rather than economic – benefits of an independent Scotland; the shoring up of rights in a codified constitution, the potential for a legislature the workings of which are far more transparent and accessible than Westminster, the bolstering of the continental-style civil law components of our legal system that are unique to us as a home country to give clear, codified, robust law*. Beyond that, further publications that make a grounded but optimistic case for the social benefits we could achieve unencumbered by London.

      Essentially I think Stuart should be playing to his strengths as a communicator and expand the Wee Book brand.

    30. Liz g says:

      Dan Yell @ 3.27
      Well as “outrageous” as you think it is to challenge centuries of case law. …??
      Could you say a bit about leaving Leviticus 2:21 and The 1707 Act of Union unchallenged..?

    31. Joe says:

      Terry callachan says:
      10 July, 2019 at 11:57 am
      Joe…What’s wrong with international best practice ?

      Depends where that ‘international best practice’ comes from, whether anybody voted for the people who fill in the details of such ‘best practice’, whether they are accountable to us and to what extent, whether that ‘international best practice’ is any good for the general population of a given area and whether it is in fact any kind of ‘best practice’ in the 1st place by any sensible standards.

      Democracy isn’t just us getting to CHOOSE. That’s 50% of the point. Its us being able to HOLD TO ACCOUNT also.

      Internationalist/globalist policies offer neither.

      Its not difficult to understand. Even an authoritarian leftist ‘saysomethingbadandilltellonyou’ half-baked wingnut like Geo should be able to grasp it.

    32. Cubby says:

      Callachan@2.51pm

      “Get well soon.” More personal abuse Dr Terry.

      So for the second time you have said I am ALWAYS calling people racists or bigots. Back it up with facts then Callachan or shut up.

      For the second time I am telling you It’s JUST YOU Callachan based on your blood and soil Nationalist anti English posts. No one else but you Mr Racist. Some racists are proud to be racists but others like you get all Mr Angry when called out. You are correct in one thing I DO NOT respect racist views. Never have never will.

      What’s with all this I forgive you crap. You got some sort of a mixture of saviour complex and superiority complex going there. Callachan you are full of it – and if ain’t pleasant stuff.

    33. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Just taking a brief dip in from the positive glories of Le Tour with my ha’porth here.

      The sheriff seems to have been (at least nominally) balancing competing rights – on the one hand the right not to suffer reputational damage by public defamation, and on the other hand the right to free speech and the airing of honestly-held opinion. That he chose to take the side of free speech is one thing, but to award damages the way he has is quite another – it absolutely flies in the face of his own judgement that Stu was indeed defamed, so the first right has in effect been entirely discounted. That is hard to understand or justify in the circumstances, and being so manifestly lop-sided would appear to cast doubt on the impartiality of the judge and thus leave open an avenue to appeal.

      A salient issue which appears (to me anyway, observing from the sidelines) to have been overlooked so far in all of this, is the question of malice aforethought. It seems to me that Kez’s utterances were not merely the airing of an honestly-held if mistaken opinion, but rather a deliberate attempt to smear a very effective political opponent. (Not an unknown NorthBritLab tactic, as we have seen from 2014 and since, given their insufferable exceptionalism and in the absence of anything positive to offer.) If there is clear evidence of such, that would significantly enhance Stu’s chance of success.

    34. Liz g says:

      OT…
      I think we now have the Leader of HM official opposition admitting that the US President intends to try to buy the NHS and that the current Westminster Government will likely let him.
      We need to clarify if that includes NHS Scotland!!!

    35. CameronB Brodie says:

      Capella
      It just so happens I do know a bit about international human rights jurisprudence. I’m also aware that “sex” is not the same as “gender-ID” and that conflating them is problematic to rational jurisprudence. Conflating a right to self-ID your own sex with a right to be same-sex attracted, is similarly problematic. Subsequently, I understand that the Yogyakarta Principles do not provide justification for self-ID of sex, they provide a guide to best practice of existing legal doctrine relevant to curbing cultural discrimination against particular expressions of male and female sexuality (see the DUP for example).

      Remember though, I support a “wingnut”. 😉

      The Impact of the Yogyakarta Principles on
      International Human Rights Law Development
      A Study of November 2007 – June 2010
      Final Report

      Introduction

      ….This report attempts to capture the global impact of the Yogyakarta Principles by documenting States’ responses and references to the Principles in the three primary governmental areas in which domestic law is developed, implemented and enforced: judicial decisions, legislative enactments, and executive policies. Both enacted statutes and pending bills are reported.

      In addition, judicial decisions as well as briefs submitted that cite the Yogyakarta Principles for their value as a guide or precedent are included. In both instances, it is anticipated that there will be some resulting law or opinion that is likely to reference the Principles and, thus, should be monitored. The report also captures the use of and development of the Yogyakarta Principles within the United Nations and regional and inter-governmental human rights bodies.

      All of this is to provide a global snapshot of the impact that the Yogyakarta Principles have had to date in promoting domestic laws, decisions and policies that ensure the human rights of people as they relate to an individual’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity and in developing international human rights jurisprudence within the United Nations and other human rights bodies.

      The project of reporting on the “law” has raised interesting and dynamic debates about what constitutes human rights law. The Principles are referred to interchangeably as “binding human rights law” and as “non-binding law.” Debate is and will be ongoing about the precise legal impact of a legislative branch “adopting” the Yogyakarta Principles wholesale as opposed to adopting legislation that addresses the more discrete recommendations that further the rights mandated by international treaties in concrete and specific ways.

      How law is developed from an activist and advocate’s perspective is also briefly discussed. And, finally further recommendations are provided with the hope of enhancing the use of the Principles and further integration of international human rights law into domestic law by advocates at all levels….

      ….While without the fanfare and the huge number of participants, not to mention United Nations financial and institutional support, the conveners of the Yogyakarta Principles Committee of Experts sought on a smaller scale to confront the denialism among many factions within the human rights legal process that human rights law does not apply to LGBT people. The Principles they developed are not aspirational. They are the straightforward application of existing human rights law to the lives of people whose sexual orientation and gender identity are the lightning rod for discrimination. They were developed by participants whose human rights credentials far outrank those of most State representatives within the United Nations. As such, the criticism and skepticism of their value is misplaced….

      “Human rights apply to all people, in all places and at all times. … Human rights also apply to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. In 85 countries, homosexuality is still punishable by law and people can be prosecuted because of their sexual orientation. In five countries in the world – Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen – consensual sexual acts by people of the same sex are even capital crimes.

      There is no excuse for the humiliation and exclusion of homosexual people – let alone for imposing the death penalty on them. Decriminalizing homosexuality and countering discrimination based on sexual orientation are priorities within Dutch human rights policy. The Dutch government subscribes to the Yogyakarta Principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. I call upon other States to embrace these principles as well.”13

      ypinaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Yogyakarta_Principles_Impact_Tracking_Report.pdf

    36. SilverDarling says:

      @Dan Yell

      Why not write an article and submit it to WoS? If it is worth going in the WBB, I’m sure Rev Stu would consider it. Some of the topics you mention seem worth pursuing.

      With no personal investment in the case and some knowledge of Scots Law I’m sure it is relatively easy to advise against. However, someone’s reputation however much you dislike them or disagree with them is theirs to defend.

      I don’t agree with everything published here but then I don’t incur the wrath of the Union and MSM every day and put myself through what he does with the uncertainty of financial ruin either. I don’t feel I can dictate what he writes and how he presents himself because it is ultimately HIS site. He consulted those who have funded the site, though, regarding the appeal and we told him.

      What is important to one person may not be so important to another, whether they are dispassionate or even hostile observers. I get that people feel ownership of the site through long standing participation or financial support but it ultimately belongs to Stu, reflects his views and without him many people in the Yes side would have no voice at all – especially those who are not SNP members or fans of Bella/National/CS.

      The decision is made and I wish him all the best.

    37. gus1940 says:

      Does anybody know when Darroch sent his cables criticising Trump?

      If it was during Boris’s time as Foreign Secretary surely he would have seen the cables.

      If that is the case surely the finger of guilt re the leak must point in the direction of Boris.

      If it was him surely this is a case of ‘Lock Him Up’ instead of becoming PM.

    38. kapelmeister says:

      Del Boy Johnson setting up his stall to flog stuff cheap to the Yanks down the market.

      Once that happens, in Scotland only fools and arses will vote for the union.

    39. Dan Yell says:

      @Liz g Well as “outrageous” as you think it is to challenge centuries of case law. …??
      Could you say a bit about leaving Leviticus 2:21 and The 1707 Act of Union unchallenged..?

      That was not what I said or meant. My reference to “centuries” (that was actually a typo, it should have been “over a century’s”, but my meaning wasn’t lost I don’t think) was addressing the claims in the comments that, in making the judgement, the Sheriff was engaging in judicial activism, establishing some new, paradoxical law that gives prospective defamers a ready-made get-out in the form of the fair comment defence. On this premise, some commenters were further claiming that the Sheriff must have presided over a kangaroo court that was out to get Stuart. I am saying that this is patent nonsense, not least because caselaw decades-old caselaw was applied and whatismore cited in the reasoning. Question the wisdom of a system that requires a precedent from the 1890s to be applied to a case involving Twitter if you like, or just declare the whole system rigged. But what you can’t credibly claim is that the Sheriff fabricated some legal instrument for the purpose of screwing over a rabble-rouser when the legal sources for his decision are cited in said reasoning.

      Which brings me back to why I think an appeal is so futile and why leave will probably not even be given: an appeal is not a re-run of the initial case. It is remedy for an error in law made by a subordinate court. To be granted leave, you have to present a credible claim that such an error has occurred, and I cannot see how Stuart’s lawyers will do this, because the Sheriff’s decision has been carefully furnished by precedent. For all Stuart’s dramatic talk elsewhere of the “legal ramifications” of the case, it was, jurisprudentially speaking, completely unremarkable. The law is exactly the same before the decision it is now.

    40. CameronB Brodie says:

      P.S. The proposed change to the GRA would discriminate against women in the same way the full-English Brexit discriminates against Scots. It ignores “embodied difference”. Subsequently, conflating being Scottish with being fully British is also problematic, frankly.

    41. Lenny Hartley says:

      Gus1940 I thought the same however Craig Murray has a post on his blog on this very subject and it could have been several hundred people although my money is still on somebody close to Boris.

    42. vlad (not that one) says:

      Yep. I see it now. (1) Now is not the time. (2) This is not the fight you ought to be fighting. (3) Waste of precious time. (4) Assuredly futile. (5) Waste of time and money, which should be better used for er.. purposes. (6) If you lose, bad publicity, bad for Scotland. (7) If you win, KD appeals, even worse for Scotland. Wings unmasked as self-serving ego-trip and cynical money-grabbing plot aimed at fleecing gullible cybernats. Plot probably hatched by the 77th Brigade to divert funds and split the Yes movement. Go to step (1).

    43. Liz g says:

      Dan Yell @ 5.33
      I didn’t disagree with your premise Dan.
      And I do understand that the appeal will be about a point of Law and not a rerun of the case…
      My point was that the “law” no matter how old is not immutable and in the interests of justice should always be challenged regardless of the odds.
      People willing to do so are few and far between.
      Therefore we,as the people subject to the law should support any efforts to improve it?
      To say “it’s the Law get over it” ( not that I’m saying that you did ) is, I think, a mistake of the worst kind!

    44. stuart mctavish says:

      Dan Yell @ numerous

      It has taken over 2 years to reach this stage and a second indy ref is on the table within the next 2. Under such circumstance there is no good reason to agree payment to lawyers acting on behalf of the labour party or daily record and if an appeal is lost, there is little reason why it too should not be appealed.

      A good reason to settle might have been out of respect for Kezia Dugdale’s family/ mental health but the award on Costs has probably rendered any such magnanimity fiscally incompetent. As As others have observed appealing costs on a split decision, as per Orkney4 v Charmichael, is not frivolous and that is before considering the sheriff misconducting himself in ignoring arguments to the premedita can hardly be frivou split on has pointed out elsewhere whereas keeping the claim alive indefinitely

    45. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dan Yell
      I’ll not challenge you on historical case-law but do you think it probable that KD was ignorant of what homophobia means?

    46. Petra says:

      WGD:- ‘Nationalism and thatessempee.’

      Plus the Wee Ginger Book.

      https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/07/10/nationalism-and-thatessempee/

    47. stuart mctavish says:

      Oops, sticky keyboard.

      .. and that is before considering the sheriff misconducting himself in ignoring arguments relating to the premeditated strategy that saw the defamatory claim repeated in parliament, which presumably would be sufficient to demonstrate bias of some description to a higher court

    48. Legerwood says:

      gus1940 at 5:30 pm

      I don’t know when the cables were sent – just one of many details not being revealed but as they say in the best mysteries: ‘who benefits?’ Boris?

      Tom Harris has an article in the Daily Telegraph – headline: “”Boris Johnson showed true leadership by refusing to back Sir Kim Darroch against Trump””

      When Wikileaks released all the diplomatic cables many penned by various US ambassadors were less than complementary about the leadership in their diplomatic areas but how many were sacked/recalled by the US because the leaders demanded the recall of the US ambassadorsin their respective countries?

      If asked to recall/replace their ambassadors would the US have done so? Or would they have argued, as the UK has done, that ambassadors must report frankly otherwise they are not doing their jobs.

      Johnson’s behaviour in this, and much else, does not engender confidence in the future which is putting it mildly.

    49. Petra says:

      Professor John Robertson bringing you the latest news:-

      https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com

      …………………

      Twenty six hours on and my post is still in moderation. Any chance of giving me a clue, lol, as to what I’ve done wrong, Stu?

    50. ronnie anderson says:

      Dan Yell Stuart Campbell is a Blogger how many hour do you think he has to effect all you say , the Wee Blue Book as I have said before has been catered for & like the rest of us is awaiting events out with his/our control to trigger the next phase of our cause .

    51. Iain mhor says:

      @Dan Yell

      I’ve appreciated your input, thank you. We are not all calling the Sheriff & the judgement a mad conspiracy theory though, try not to totally despair.

      Anyone who has ever had anything to do with a legal case in court knows, nothing is invented. No Sheriff dare deviate from the law as it is written and introduce novel invention. Where an interpretation of the law is required, the reasoning behind a judgement is fully explained.

      Certainly where something can be interpreted either way, a Sheriff may introduce a personal bias of reasoning – but it must still be valid in law. That is not to say an error of judgement cannot occur, but as you point out, one must show where a judgement “errs in law” – not that the ‘law as written errs’. The law as written cannot err. It can be decided unfit, or unsound and require amemding or repealing at a later date – but a Sheriff can only pish with the cock he’s got and if that’s what the law says at the time, that’s what he must judge on.

      I have managed to succesfully argue an error in law (or rather a judgement erred in law) once upon a time and that required a lot of effort and precision and almost cost me my livelihood – but it can be done – errors do occur. By the gods you have to be good to find them though.
      So it’s possible the Rev and his legals believe they have found a cause to appeal and far be it from me to dissuade them. Perhaps of course, you have good reason and recourse to believe otherwise. It is not for me to suggest your opinion is wrong either.

      I think perhaps those few here (and it is only a few) who have never experienced a court of law at first hand, are the ones with the shakiest theories.

    52. CameronB Brodie says:

      “Subsequently, conflating being Scottish with being fully British is also problematic, frankly.”

      I don’t mean that in an essentialist blood-and-soil way, I mean Scotland voted to stay in the EU. We voted to maintain our EU legal identity, which is an issue of international law. Simples.

      Scots are not English. Our constitutional status as Scots means we are positioned differently to residents of rUK, with respect to our notional relation to internal human rights law. This will most likely change in Brexitania, as the Scottish identity is submerged under cultural patriarchy and inescapably (English) utilitarian ‘rational paternalism’.

    53. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      “I think we now have the Leader of HM official opposition admitting that the US President intends to try to buy the NHS and that the current Westminster Government will likely let him” you say at 5:19 pm @Liz g

      Any chance of a link?

    54. Lenny Hartley says:

      Gus1940 after reading Craig Nmurray’s latest blog on the diplomatic spat between the biggest and bested allies in the World I have now decided its Hunt or his cohorts, Boris has been damaged I believe by his refusal to criticise Potus or backup the Ambassador to the US.
      Only one person looking for that outcome.

    55. call me dave says:

      The Guardian:

      Brexit ferry fiasco could be repeated, MPs warn

      http://archive.is/vBOby

    56. Dan Yell says:

      @CameronB Brodie no, but that was never a component of her defence and I can’t be bothered hashing out that effing judgement yet again.
      @SilverDarling I don’t have training in law, constitutional otherwise, besides which I’m not a good writer. I’d also have to get over my not-inconsiderable dislike of Stuart Campbell before I contributed here rather than some other outlet.
      @stuart mctavish A further appeal would have to go to the Supreme Court. If the biggest name in Scottish self-determination (outside of career politicians, at any rate) ended up going to a UK court to seek remedy on a question of Scots common law, the litigious nonsense of it all probably wouldn’t even annoy me anymore. I would probably throw my arms up and laugh.

    57. Allan Watson says:

      O/T Leaked memo’s.

      France 24 reporting that the memo’s cover the period from 2017 to present date

    58. Dan Yell says:

      @Iain mhor Do you mind me asking what the case was?
      I’m not a lawyer, for all I know there is some fatal flaw in the Sheriff’s reasoning, Rev Campbell will emerge victorious and if I show my face BTL here again, I’ll be choking on my words. Google just makes a very good case that it isn’t happening.

    59. Liz g says:

      Jockaneese Wind Talker @ 6.56
      Sorry can’t do links…
      But you’ll find it on Jeremy Corbins Twitter

    60. mike cassidy says:

      Oh, Look!

      A defamation case arises out of the leaked emails case.

      Question is.

      Is it worse to be called homophobic or to be described as sleeping with Nigel Farage

      http://archive.is/ZsX11

    61. SilverDarling says:

      @Dan Yell 8.16 pm

      Fair enough, I can respect that.

      A lack of expertise or goodwill doesn’t stop all the resident ‘experts’ who frequent BTL, but then they don’t have your candour or insight!

    62. mike cassidy says:

      Interestingly Oakeshott is currently twitter-claiming its just a good story – not a conspiracy

      As if July 7th didn’t exist

      https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1148113061359890432

    63. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dan Yell says:
      @CameronB Brodie no, but that was never a component of her defence and I can’t be bothered hashing out that effing judgement yet again.

      My mistake, I was under the impression that her defense rested on her not understanding the words she was using to defame our host. I’m probably not the only one to be under this impression.

    64. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dan Yell
      Sorry, not her defense, but the Sheriff’s justification for awarding costs against the transgressed, rather than the transgressor.

    65. stuart mctavish says:

      @ Dan Yell,

      An appeal to the UK Supreme court might be feasible if Scotland hasn’t been dragged out the EU against its wishes and ended the UK by then, as implied by the rhetoric of some big name career politicians – but what chance of all Scottish appeals being exhausted and the case being heard before 31 October? 🙂

      Not sure why you would find the scenario you describe funny but if events arising from Brexit, or lack thereof, have not precluded it by the time it is needed, it could be the appeal to the first impartial court thereafter where things start to get interesting.

    66. Ken500 says:

      Scotland would get an S30 from the Courts because of the way Westminster unionists treat Scotland. Without any Democracy or human rights. The reason Scotland had to have Devolution if people in Scotland voted for it. EU/UN human rights and principles of self determination.

      The Torues will soon be gone.

    67. Dan Yell says:

      @Cameron B it wasn’t the basis of the Sheriff’s reasoning either.

    68. Iain mhor says:

      @Dan Yell 8:29pm

      Unfortunately, I can’t state the particulars of the case here Btl. Suffice to say a judgement was made, I felt that something inherently didn’t square. There was some illogicality to my mind. Generallly rules, regulations and law have an inherent logic to them (don’t laugh) if you deal with enough of them, you get a feel when something doesn’t gel. That’s the signal to go digging.

      We must accept legals (Sheriffs included) are au-fait with the law as written and are interpreting it and explaining it to us correctly. However, some serious digging into the actual law (and case-law relating to my situation) uncovered that there had been a probable error in interpreting the law. “Erred in law” I put my case, a QC looked at it and agreed. The initial, judgement (or verdict if you will) was overturned in my favour.

      In both my personal and professional capacities (not a lawyer) I have always stood by the maxim “show me where it is written” For there are always layers of management repeating what they were told down the line. No one ever checks the veracity of the claims. RTFM! used to be an old techie term. So, when you are told “you can’t do that, the regulations state that… Etc. It behoves one to ask “where is that written?” Inevitably, if you do get a response (and often you don’t, so you’ve won) you can go and investigate yourself. Nine out of ten times, in my experience, what I am told is wrong.

      One expects the law and legal profession to hold to a more exacting standard than most however – for its entire function is based on “where it is written” and not hearsay – it is intimidating, arcane and obfuscating and relies on the fact the layman must accept their accuracy. However, it’s worth “checking their work”, especially if a judgement goes against you. At least they do tell you precisely “where it is written” and the archives and digitised weighty tomes, are at your fingertips.

      To err is human, the law provides for this. But do be sure when appealing, for it is casting aspersions on their professionalism and it is not viewed too kindly. However, if there is a sniff you could be correct, it is taken very seriously.

    69. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dan Yell
      Thanks for the reply. I’m not doubting you and not trying to test you patience either. That was the impression I had taken, so I’ll go and RTFM. 😉

    70. Dan Yell says:

      @CameronB Brodie NP, sorry, I being rude to you for no good reason. I think the part of the judgement you’re getting at is this bit:


      Objectively, and applying the common sense approach enjoined by Massie, not everybody will take Mr Campbell’s approach to a joke about homosexuality. It is common sense that the analysis applied by a heterosexual (a dispassionate application of logic based on the dictionary meaning of words) may be entirely different from the analysis applied by a homosexual person (a dismayed search for justification for an unnecessary joke at the apparent expense of a homosexual man). It is not possible to dismiss the latter as less worthy, or less rational, or less fair, than the former. It is the kind of subjective, rational and honest reading of the tweet, leading to a subjective, rational and honest public comment, which will be protected by the law as fair comment. Accordingly, the comment was fair, because it can be rationally justified from the underlying facts.

    71. Dr Jim says:

      Boris Johnson said “I will not allow Scottish Independence*

      Now Boris Johnson says *I’ll prevent Scottish Indepndence by giving them stuff*

      Why would you need to prevent something that you say you have the power to deny, why would you need to offer pacification if you say you have the power to refuse

      Theresa May at PMQs angrily stated that the SNP were planning a referendum within 18 months yet she didn’t utter a stutter about not allowing it or stopping it or refusing a section 30 order to prevent it

      Because they know they can’t refuse a section 30 order now or ever because in 2014 they already agreed to it in the signing of the Smith Commission as witnessed by their own Lord Smith of Kelvin who was the UKs arbiter of that Commission

    72. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dan Yell
      Thanks, that does cover my concern. I know a bit about this sort of stuff, including a bit of the brain science, so I really should read the judgement myself. Any idea what the going rate is for this sort of work? 🙂

    73. CameronB Brodie says:

      Stuff like this, which links to the self-ID debate.

      Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932/

    74. CameronB Brodie says:

      This is the power of weird sociology, or something. 🙂

      Sexual Prejudice
      Understanding Homophobia and Heterosexism

      https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/sexual_prejudice.html

    75. CameronB Brodie says:

      Which leads to this point in space, so I really should read the judgement myself.

      EXAMINING EMPATHY: DISCRIMINATION, EXPERIENCE, AND JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING
      http://www.americanbarfoundation.org/uploads/cms/documents/weinberg_nielsen_-_examining_empathy.pdf

    76. Ken500 says:

      It’s worth it to get rid of Dugdale. Look how much they are costing the public purse. Rev Stu is doing the public a favour challenging their lies. Leading to their demise. Dugdale illegally telling folk to vote Tory. They could not make a bigger mess. The lying imbeciles. The rest of the liars will be looking on as well. Trying to keep their gobs shut or they will get sued.

      The Tory/unionists will soon be gone along with the rest of them. Unionists liars. Mucking up the Councils as well. Spending £Millions on grotesque projects and not funding education or essential services properly. Shops and offices sitting empty and under occupied hotels. Wasting £Millions/Billions. Schools overflowing and no new schools built. The unionists tirade. The Brexit shambles.

    77. @CameronB Brodie,

      As long as you honestly believe someone to be something it is not considered defamation,even though accusation is false,

      Sheriff Nigel Ross decided that Kezia honestly believed Stu to be a homophobe,

      the big question,which Sheriff Nigel Ross has not answered sufficiently,is how did Kezia come to this honest belief,

      to accuse someone on such a public forum with such a terrible
      accusation from one lighthearted joke surley cannot be seen as a cause to believe Stu is a homophobe,

      Sheriff Nigel Ross should have the common sence to see this was just pure malicious slander and not `honest belief`,

      the flaw in Sheriff Ross`s verdict is his lack of a satisfactory reason for Kezia to claim that she believed Stu was homophobic,

      this was a malicious `mud sticks` attack by a high ranking politician with the connivance of a unionist rag.

    78. CameronB Brodie says:

      I need time on this, as I’m very, very rusty. I’ll also need to remind myself of the original tweet, as I didn’t get the impression it was homophobic. Largely as the only encouragement of homophobic exclusion was of a surreal variety, and was to be supportive towards the emancipation of homosexuality. You know, a bad-taste joke. Next to sarcasm and along a bit from satire.

      Here’s some related Brexitology.

      Unpacking Prejudice: Narratives of Homophobia in Cross-National Context

      ABSTRACT: This chapter analyses homophobic responses in two distinctive European contexts, Poland and Britain. It is based on a multi-method research project conducted as part of the ERC-funded ‘Living with Difference in Europe’ research programme. It adopts a social topographic approach to produce a cartography of homophobia: the analysis looks at the ways prejudices against lesbians and gay men are refracted through the lens of different national histories and socio-spatial relationships. Our findings show that homophobia is more frequently expressed in silent and subtle ways in Britain, whereas in Poland it remains more salient and blatant.

      We argue that, despite a transnational narrative of the idealisation of the ‘West’ as ‘homophobia-free’, homophobia still is present in both countries. The chapter demonstrates that we need to pay more attention to the different ways homophobia is expressed across Europe, looking more closely at specific national contexts as well as at the inter-connectivity of homophobia in a transnational age.

      https://www.peterlang.com/view/9783035397000/10_Chapter01.x

    79. CameronB Brodie says:

      Scot Finlayson
      Much appreciated. It looks that way to me, and I honestly believe that. ;(

    80. CameronB Brodie says:

      In fact, the only exclusion being encouraged was of the privileged offspring of denied sexuality. I believe that used to be called a joke.

    81. CameronB Brodie says:

      OK, that cross-cultural study wasn’t proper Brexitology, though homophobia is most common in those who tend to either be a bit sexist or racists. Or both, so they will probably be well accommodated in the emerging culture of Brexitania.

    82. Ruglonian says:

      O/T

      Hello All,
      Just to let those that are interested know, as per Ronnie’s message (at 5.58pm on the post “The Achievers”) the donations from monies raised by the Wings stall at Ayr have went to AyeMail, iScot, Phantom Power, WGD, and there was also a small donation made in person to the Hail Caesar! pipe band.

      To the folk that put donations towards the Wings crowdfunder at the stall on Saturday – Your donations have been sent directly to Stu.

      Ronnie’s wee collection of stall volunteers will be, loosely, coordinated by me from now on – if there is anyone who attends events that wants to put themselves forward to help setup/man the Wings stall in the future then leave a message for me on O/T 🙂

      Finally, to the man himself, Mr Ronnie Anderson – thank you so much for all your hard work over the years, taking the onus to always have a Wings presence at events for folk to gravitate to (and get a power of cheek off you!) – you know that there will be a throne in place for you at the stall from now on 😀 xxx

    83. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m not trying to show-off here folks, but we all want to understand the world around us. Some of us do anyhoo, so here’s some practical knowledge aimed at helping.

      The Normative Theory of Social Exclusion:
      Perspectives from Political Philosophy

      Abstract: Reducing social exclusion as an aim of policy is a laudable political goal, but the definition of, and normative justification of policies reducing, social exclusion are unclear. This paper first defines social exclusion as used by academics and policy makers. The paper then uses the capability approach to define social exclusion.

      It then takes various elements of the definition of social exclusion, particularly concerns with respecting choice, human welfare, and concerns with fairness in society, and relates them to contemporary concerns in political philosophy. In so doing, the paper both helps to refine the idea of social exclusion, and also points to theoretical tensions in that idea. It concludes by linking concern with social exclusion to more recent theories of social or relational equality.

      http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucesswo/IJSSP%20ms.doc

    84. chicmac says:

      OT For those (few) who may still entertain the misapprehension that jurisprudence within these islands is or has ever been impartial, I offer a well known skit on the topic by the wonderful Peter Cooke some decades ago.

      It is a humorous reminder that while the rest of the World changes at an accelerating rate, in regard to matters of establishment control (like the judiciary) most of us will not be lucky enough to live long enough to hear the tock following the tick we heard at birth from the establishment clock before we pop our clogs.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U

    85. Dr Jim says:

      How does a court or judge decide that a person is being truthful in the expression of an opinion of someone they have never met

      In deciding that one opinion over another holds more validity the court or judge is expressing it’s own opinion of two people it’s never met so is making an uneducated guess as to whether one person over the other is the better liar

      I doubt whether I’ll ever be convinced this could possibly in any shape or form be construed as an evidence based judgement

      It’s got personal written all over it

    86. geeo says:

      Dan Yell (Daniel who?) spewed this:

      “I’d also have to get over my not-inconsiderable dislike of Stuart Campbell before I contributed here rather than some other outlet”.

      ……..

      Feel free to go contribute to “some other outlet” !

      For someone stating the above, you sure have posted pretty much non stop all day with the same boring mantra.

      You are overtly keen to tell everyone you hate the blog owner, not so keen on saying WHY you hate him though.

      So, go on, indulge us, what’s your beef ?

      As for the legal case, you state you are no lawyer, you suggest you are googling your opinion, and yet, you are presenting the resulting ‘insight’ on here, as absolute fact, and anyone saying otherwise is thick.

      Back in the real world, you have AN OPINION re:appeal chances.

      Still in the real world, Stu is getting actual legal advice from ACTUAL Lawyers.

      He only come on here to see if we would support him financially, should the legal advice be, that he has a better than even chance of success.

      Your whole OPINION is he will lose, because Stu once allegedly chatted up your granny (or maybe knocked her back?) or something else, to deeply offend you.

      C’mon, Daniel, what did Stu ever do to you ?

    87. twathater says:

      All this faux outrage by the media and politicos about Kim Darroch and the civil service being apolitical and not having personal views is such a load of pish , ask any Scots person how they felt when the whole of the civil service was engaged in lies and corruption to prevent the break up of the PRECIOUS union , how they were actively encouraged nay ordered to protect the status quo ,

      And how they were presented with worthless trinkets at a scurrilous faux awards ceremony , where many openly admitted ( gagging vomit ) to feeling emotional and in tears that their not inconsiderable efforts had contributed in great part to saving the union

      The subsequent antics against Alex Salmond also highlighted that the civil service only has one master ( The ESTABLISHMENT ) which it will protect with every means possible , legal or illegal , BTW has the leaker in the wastemonster Scottish civil service ever been found or does it not matter

    88. Ken500 says:

      The Tory imbeciles now ramping up conflict with Iran. BBC bias. The total troughing incompetents now trying for another conflict. To try and divert from their total and utter chaos. Deja Vu. What a bunch of losers. More £Billions wasted. The £ will plummet causing further hardship and ramping up the debt.

      Johnstone will not last until October. The Tory majority of 3? Thirty against (a no deal) Brexit. The wheels will come off the wagon soon. Into oblivion they will go. Just vote SNP/SNP. Vote for Independence. Get one other to vote as well. Vote for a better world.

    89. Golfnut says:

      @ twathater.

      Civil service.

      Remember all those so called independent reports, IFS for example, commissioned by DWP etc, paid for by DWP etc, The Treasury Secretary( who just happened to own 20,000 acres in Scotland) supporting Osbornes claim that we couldn’t use the pound. It’s HM civil service of course.

    90. Petra says:

      Great to see that Paul Kavanagh is going to produce a ‘Ginger Book’ full of key factual information.

      WGD:- ‘Money, money, money.’

      https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/money-money-money/

    91. Golfnut says:

      @ Chicmac

      The Supreme court sitting on its hands long enough to have the Continuity Bill invalidated by changes to the Withdrawal Bill and signed by the Queen being prime example.

    92. Petra says:

      I see that my post that was in moderation has now disappeared altogether Stu. The post was a rebuttal to RoberttheTruths tirade against me. His (her) post remains but mine is gone. My post contained no links or taboo words, which makes me wonder what it did contain to justify removing it altogether.

    93. Petra says:

      Boris the Clown will have three months to strike a deal with the EU. Who, on here, thinks he’ll manage to do so, lol?

      http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-brexit-deadline-whitehall-optimism-debate-hunt-a8998556.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-c3Ni5qs4wIVKpPtCh1k0Qs2EAAYASAAEgKq-vD_BwE

    94. Petra says:

      Oil, gas, electricity and, eh, water! It’s no wonder Boris proposed using ‘gravity’, lol, to steal our water over and above everything else that they’ve stolen from us, that is.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13765279

      …………………….

      The latest from Professor John Robertson:-

      ‘Scottish Water has NO serious pollution incidents while England’s nine privatised companies have 56.’

      https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2019/07/11/scottish-water-has-no-serious-pollution-incidents-while-englands-nine-privatised-companies-have-56/

    95. Petra says:

      This will p*ss Westminster right off. No need for Nicola to visit Brussels, Hunt. Looks as though they’ve all got her measure already.

      ‘New EU leader says she’s a fan of Nicola Sturgeon.’

      https://www.thenational.scot/news/17762198.watch-new-eu-leader-says-fan-nicola-sturgeon/

    96. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Iain mhor at 10:14 pm.

      You typed,
      “In both my personal and professional capacities (not a lawyer) I have always stood by the maxim “show me where it is written” For there are always layers of management repeating what they were told down the line. No one ever checks the veracity of the claims. RTFM! used to be an old techie term. So, when you are told “you can’t do that, the regulations state that… Etc. It behoves one to ask “where is that written?” Inevitably, if you do get a response (and often you don’t, so you’ve won) you can go and investigate yourself. Nine out of ten times, in my experience, what I am told is wrong.”

      I read this years ago and saved it, as it reminded me of certain aspects of the 1993 Timex dispute.

      The Plan

      In the beginning, there was a plan,
      And then came the assumptions,
      And the assumptions were without form,
      And the plan without substance,

      And the darkness was upon the face of the workers,
      And they spoke among themselves saying,
      “It is a crock of shit and it stinks.”

      And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said,
      “It is a pile of dung, and we cannot live with the smell.”

      And the Supervisors went unto their Managers saying,
      “It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong,
      Such that none may abide by it.”

      And the Managers went unto their Directors saying,
      “It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide by its strength.”

      And the Directors spoke among themselves saying to one another,
      “It contains that which aids plants growth, and it is very strong.”

      And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents saying unto them,
      “It promotes growth, and it is very powerful.”

      And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him,
      “This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor
      Of the company With very powerful effects.”

      And the President looked upon the Plan
      And saw that it was good,
      And the Plan became Policy.

      And this, my friend, is how shit happens.

      Your line “show me where it is written” should have been applied to “The Plan”.

    97. Dan Yell says:

      @geeo
      For someone stating the above, you sure have posted pretty much non stop all day with the same boring mantra
      I’m flattered by the implication that a few BTL comments qualify as “contributions”.

      So, go on, indulge us
      No.

      My dislike of Stu has nothing to do with my opinion on his chances of success. That he would litigate over this does reinforce my dislike of him, though.

      Congratulations on cracking the code of my username, btw. I reckon a career in any nascent Scottish intelligence service beckons post-independence.

    98. admiral says:

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-48939564

      We’re all doomed! Poor Scotland – more oil and gas exploration licenses being issued, how can we stand it!

    99. Ottomanboi says:

      With alleged antisemitism and so called homophobia, transphobia and islamophobia, the British state is in a parlous condition. Anglo factionalism is now the default mode.
      We must get out of this fractious unionist culture.

    100. gus1940 says:

      How much does The UK Treasury receive from the Exploration Licences?

      How much have they received since the start of N. Sea Oil & Gas exploration?

    101. jfngw says:

      UK government to spend even more promoting England in Scotland, and the magic of it is the cost is probably allocated to Scotland and added to the GERS figures. They certainly know how to take the piss, I’ll give them that.

    102. A C Bruce says:

      Article from Alec Ross, Orkney News.

      https://theorkneynews.scot/2019/07/11/power-retained/

      I miss Nana’s links.

    103. A C Bruce says:

      Can we just move on please from the “I don’t like Stuart but” guff, DanYell?

      It’s childish.

    104. A C Bruce says:

      This is doing the rounds again from 17 September 2014. Should we need reminding.

      https://fortune.com/2014/09/17/scotland-uk-independence/

      The third point is particularly interesting.

    105. mike cassidy says:

      One of Nana’s favourites – Fintan O’Toole

      A spiffing tale of how Brexit was ‘spaffed’ away

      (contains language of a sexual nature!)

      http://archive.is/6iJI5

    106. galamcennalath says:

      jfngw says:

      promoting England in Scotland … the cost is probably allocated to Scotland

      Indeed. Although they make totally hamfisted efforts at promoting their Union, it is genuinely difficult see what positive steps they can actually take. The case for Scotland staying in union is weak and getting weaker!

      Since most effort has been to try to scare us off Indy, anything BritNats do will be treated with justified suspicion or as a joke. Anything they did they would (as you say) charge us for it, making it both offensive and underhand.

      Only one action comes to mind – cancel Brexit and take the idea of leaving the EU permanently off the table. That would buy them some more time.

      Another Vow? That seems inevitable. Too little to late. They missed an opportunity with Vow1 and Smith. Similarly, significant constitutional change – federal UK, whatever. This amounts to just more evidence that they lie!

    107. Abulhaq says:

      @Ken500
      The people of Iran do not want war. The US backed Saddam’s Iraq in the Iran-Iraq conflict which cost both countries heavy ‘losses’.
      Is simply defending their territorial waters from potential aggressors sufficient cause for anglos to start one? The promotion of instability in the ME, an instability which gave rise to ‘Islamic State’, is apparently current State dept policy. Trump has had the good sense to distance himself from such dangerous sabre rattling.
      The Brit ambassador Kim Darroch supported the ‘régime change’ Iraq war and may well support the neo-con line on Iran.
      Scotland does not need such associates. The EU, despite its failings, is a diplomatic ‘third force’.
      Our interests lie there.

    108. Arthur C says:

      I also miss Nana’s links, was she banned or did she stop for another reason. Has anyone seen her posting elsewhere?
      It’s a shame, she really saved me trawling the web for news.

    109. Dr Jim says:

      If Boris doesn’t do Brexit the Tories are toast there’ll be a general election and Nigel Farage will be England’s new Presidential Prime Minister and Corbyn might not even make second place and fall behind behind the Lib Dems, I don’t believe for a second that Corbyn doesn’t want Brexit, politically he needs it to give himself a platform after it happens, that’s why before it happens he’s waffling and waffling on no real definite position, If it happens he’ll rail against it, if it doesn’t happen he’ll rail against that

      English voters punish parties for not doing what they want

      It’s different in Scotland, Tory and Labour supporters in Scotland would vote for the genocide of Independence supporters if they thought they could rid themselves of the SNP if either of those parties introduced it as a policy, we know they wouldn’t of course (oh the horror) but they’d like to if they thought they could get away with it

      Maybe we should call it the Unionist effect, they don’t have that in England they just have hatred of everyone who’s not them to keep their pot boiling

    110. Dr Jim says:

      In the Scottish affairs committee Deirdre Brock SNP MP questioned David Mundell MP Sec of State for Scotland over the £700.000 he’d spent in England on *communications* on *behalf* of Scotland’s tax payers on advertising the benefits of the Union using Facebook and Google

      She then questioned him on the up to £1 hundred million to be set aside by the Tories to fight against Scottish Independence in the coming year, Mundell said he did not recognise that figure but that yes it would be tens of millions

      If the Tories had the power to deny Scotland a referendum on Independence (as they say they do) why are they putting money aside to *fight* it

      Because they don’t have the power to say NO and they know it

    111. kapelmeister says:

      Hammond on the Preston show last night more or less signing off wistfully on the era of tolerably sensible Toryism. From now it’s the ultra Toryism of Hancock and Francois and Scotland had better escape the coming craziness.

      Also on the show was Labour’s Emily Thornberry having some kind of political nervous breakdown. Pitiful.

    112. Clootie says:

      Kapellmeister @10:53

      I thought Emily had just come straight from strangers bar!

    113. Col says:

      If the tories are using our money to fight against independence then I hope the Scottish government will spend the same amount of our money fighting for it.

    114. Dr Jim says:

      The FM Tweets of her support in the prevention of genocide throughout the world

      Unionists agree except in the case of Scottish Independence supporters

    115. call me dave says:

      Heard Jo Swinson Lib Dem asked on radio 5 if she would tell of her ‘running through fields of wheat moment’ a la May.

      “Naw! Never did anything like that”

      Go on persists the interviewer wifie….

      “Oh No” says Swinson!

      The other Lib Dem Ed Davey (Ed to his friends, not Sir) admitted to skipping school one day… Jings!

    116. Garry Henderson says:

      From the Sheriffs explanation posted by Dan Yell above;

      It is not possible to dismiss the latter as less worthy, or less rational, or less fair, than the former. It is the kind of subjective, rational and honest reading of the tweet, leading to a subjective, rational and honest public comment, which will be protected by the law as fair comment.

      So if it’s not possible to discern the worthiness of one side against the other why not split the costs 50/50 or each party pay their own costs? This is what I would be appealing.

      If Stu was defamed and Dugdale gets off with fair comment then pay your own way.

    117. Arthur C says:

      I also miss Nana’s links, was she banned or did she stop for another reason. Has anyone seen her posting elsewhere?
      It’s a shame, she really saved me trawling the web for news.

    118. Republicofscotland says:

      So it been revealed that a £20 million
      Pounds war chest will be available after Brexit to counter independence. This comes on the back of a Ipso Mori poll conducted on behalf of the British government on Scottish independence of which one can only assume (As the result of the poll is being with held) was favourable to independence.

      MP’s Pete Wishart and Tomy Sheppard, have repeatedly asked Fluffy Mundell to release the results of the poll to no avail.

      The British government now realise independence is within touching distance, the war chest of cash is to be used to defeat our chance of breaking this awful union once and for all.

    119. Republicofscotland says:

      Staying on the Mundell’s for a moment Fluffy’s son Oliver Mundell, has said that only Boris Johnson can deliver Brexit and save the union. He added Johnson will prevent Scotland from becoming independent.

      The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

    120. geeo says:

      i-Daniel -fake@ 8.01am

      “My dislike of Stu has nothing to do with my opinion on his chances of success”
      ………

      So YOU say, however, i doubt many here believe that.

      Do you think you know better that Stu’s legal team on his chances ?

      If you say Yes, you think you do, then, considering your admitted ‘Google Lawyer’ degree, just makes you look even more ridiculous.

      Publically proclaiming you hate/cannot stand someone, then refusing to say why, is pathetic.

      It also denies that person a right to reply.

      You could be assumed to be implying there is a reason why people could also turn against Stu, however, if you are claiming it is a wholly personal issue, then why are you on here, smearing him by ommission ?

      Maybe you do not have the balls to state your grievance in case YOU end up in court for defamation .
      ………

      “My dislike of Stu has nothing to do with my opinion on his chances of success”
      ………

      Well, I call bullsh*t on that statement, and challenge you to prove me wrong.

      Bet you can’t.

      Not many on here will buy into your thinly veiled smearing by ommission.

      We get too many like you on here to be fooled by them.

    121. Fergus Green says:

      Republicofscotland says:

      11 July, 2019 at 12:49 pm
      So it been revealed that a £20 million
      Pounds war chest will be available after Brexit to counter independence.

      Fergus asks:

      Is this war chest coming out of general taxation? Are our tax £s being used to subvert the wishes of the Scottish majority? If so, can we also have a £20 million fighting fund to support Indy Ref 2?

    122. jfngw says:

      As night follows day the BBC will daily run an anti Corbyn story on the main news and an anti SNP story on the Scotlandshire version.

    123. Jack Murphy says:

      TODAY AND OFF TOPIC.

      Aberdeen South Tory MP Ross Thomson in the news again—–this time it’s about the UK Ambassador to the USA.

      “The head of a civil service union has criticised a Scottish Tory MP over comments he made about the resignation of the UK’s ambassador to the US.

      Ross Thomson, who is Boris Johnson’s Scottish campaign chairman, said the “game was up” for Sir Kim Darroch when President Trump publicly attacked him.

      Mr Thomson said the “national interest” should come before defending diplomats……..” [!!!]

      BBC Scotland Politics:
      http://archive.is/RDYm0

    124. Famous15 says:

      Does anyone suspect that Mundell’s Millions to save the Dearest Union is being spent on this site?

      NO not by Stu but those he generously allows to infest,sorry, contribute their Unionist views

    125. Lenny Hartley says:

      Arthur C she got hammers from the Rev and left in the Huff. We all miss her comeback Nana.
      Somebody commented that she was doing something elsein the furtherance of Indy.

    126. A C Bruce says:

      “I also miss Nana’s links, was she banned or did she stop for another reason.”

      Nana said on another thread that she was involved in other Yes work as well as other reasons. I can’t remember the thread, sorry.

      Her links were invaluable and must have been very time consuming to put together.

    127. Clapper57 says:

      I wonder what next part of plan is to get pro Brexit guy (businessman) as next UK (not) OK ambassador to US…hmm…perhaps to get the mob on board Trump could say no trade deal for UK(not)OK with US if May appoints ambassador…then mob will insist Bojo appoints next UK (not) OK ambassador and that they MUST be a pro Brexit guy…Richard Tice (Pro Brexit businessman) and Farage already ardently setting the agenda to incite the Brexiteer mob into demanding this.

      Lord Ashcroft of course could sneak in….hence Oakshott being the messenger who delivered this latest shitfest…she of course is associated with both pro Brexit and Ashcroft..nothing to see here is there ?

      Meanwhile as per Ruth Davidson trying desperately to deflect Scots away from all of this with parochial matters…cause Scots have no access to media or ti’nternet….so hey worth a try…political coup and Brexit shitfest against parking charges currently , by the way, being implemented by HER councils LOL

      Tom Watson & co doing what Blairite Labour do best in a Tory crisis…helping them (the Tories) out by fanning the flames of yet another Labour crisis…why is anyone confused that the Brexit party are polling so well when the WM official opposition are actively screaming out for voters to abandon them at a time when the government are in meltdown….

      Meanwhile here in Scotland both of their branch parties (aided by the minor Willie one) still proudly wear their Unionist blinkers conning the Scots voters to surrender and respect this UK (not) OK by way of communicating the ‘normality’ of subjugating us to endure the justifying of the unjustifiable , tolerating the intolerable and accepting the unacceptable to continue to be subservient to what is and always was a broken and beyond repair non Union controlled solely by one dominant part…..there is or was no strong argument then or now that Scotland is better within this farcical shit fake Non Union…not equal or related as a family other than a family at war .

      Well, this is where we have ended up in 2019 all because some of us decided in 2014 “to give it ( the UK-Not-OK) one more try”…and some of us decided nope we are being conned…and we were right and we also knew that a certain fiction writer, who asked us to do that would never be accountable post Indy Ref for her empty words because they were, like her books , based on fiction. Her next book should be non fiction and entitled ‘How to con a nation with a simplistic message’….her self serving journey in promoting BritNat propaganda to the gullible…aided of course by her vast wealth some of which she donated to her pals in Better Together….which , as a campaign title, has proven to be yet another work of fiction in post Brexit UK (Not) OK.

    128. A C Bruce says:

      “Mr Thomson said the “national interest” should come before defending diplomats……..”

      Ross Thomson being typically Ross Thomson, i.e., completely lacking in nous.

      What would he have diplomats do? Soft soap and lie to their own Government in case someone might illegally leak what s/he really thinks of other countries’ leadership.

      I despair.

    129. Ruglonian says:

      Hoi Stu, *you’re* going to get a doing with hammers for autocorrecting my post (the name of the pipe band is well known enough for folk to know that it isn’t “hail caesar”) 😀 😀 😀

    130. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I also miss Nana’s links, was she banned or did she stop for another reason. Has anyone seen her posting elsewhere?”

      She wasn’t banned. I told her about a hundred times not to repeat-post stuff if it gets held up in the filters because it makes my life absolute hell, she kept ignoring me, I finally lost my temper and yelled at her a bit and she stomped off in a huff.

    131. Golfnut says:

      It would not be difficult to imagine foreign Ambassadors to the UK providing similarly damming reports regarding Westminster,the PM and her cabinet back to their respective governments. That’s part of the Ambassadors job.

    132. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      In regards to “Faux outrage over the Civil service” @twathater.

      2 Words = Craig Murray.

      Former U.K. Ambassador to Kazakhstan, Stitched up, hounded out for taking a moral stance over ‘intelligence from torture’ and ‘extraordinary rendition’ and I believe that Jack Straw lied about these as not happening in Parliament.

    133. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Uzbekistan NOT Kazakhstan

    134. Dan Yell says:

      Geeo @12:59pm
      I have no interest in what will undoubtedly be an interminable back-and-fourth about what I don’t like about Stu Campbell. I’m more than happy to live with some stranger on the internet thinking that makes me pathetic. I have explained above why I think the case couldn’t and shouldn’t be successful. If there’s any merit to what I’ve said in those posts, that is so regardless of my opinions on Stu himself. I’ve tried to be open about my feelings about Stu to avoid being mistaken for a concern troll. You’ve asserted that posters like me are a dime-a-dozen, so I don’t see why you, Stuart or anyone else here would care about those opinions or expect me to elaborate on them.

      As for knowing better than his legal team, obviously I don’t. What I will say is that I am on the record at the beginning of the hearing as a) Suggesting that the fair comment defence would be used successfully by Dugdale and b) stating unequivocally that Stuart would not be successful in any case.

    135. Joe says:

      Something interesting ive noticed today while scanning twitter (i dont have twitter but take a look occasionally).

      Im seeing a lot of happiness and gloating about Tommy Robinson (S.Lennon) going on.

      Ok.

      Not seeing so much about the fact that the British authorities covered up the activities of the grooming gangs for years, including police turning a blind eye, and with hard evidence from official sources to prove it. That’s thousands of child victims let down by authorities for the PC cause.

      You’d think people who are pro Scottish independence would be more wary of the British state?

      Priorities.

      Maybe too many of indy movement are just the Scottish version of little Englanders? Wrapped up in a tight little bubble with little room for growth or new understanding? In fact, that’s not a question. I know it to be the case.

      Im seeing people smug that some guy they have been told to hate, by the same media they themselves have accused of outright propaganda, go down while their government have been guilty of mass willful negligence to the detriment of thousands without much comment. Whether he’s a dick or not the fact is – he was talking about this years ago and the media told us he was a lying, racist, Nazi thug. But he was right.

      You better hope its a better class of people than these gloating, clueless resentful types who love a good factless persecution run Scotland when finally independent.

      As Billy Connolly once said ‘The Scots will get what they deserve’

      More accurately – you will get what you condone for others.

    136. ronnie anderson says:

      Rev Stuart Campbell

      As we all know on this WoS site Nana Smith is a worthy Winger & has been a asset to this site for many many years ( contrary to your comment she’s in a huff ) she’s not in a huff she’s busying herself in other arenas for the Independence cause as is Norman .

      If you ever tendered a apology for your gruffness of manner you have Nana’s E Mail address & I would ask you to use it or I can provide you with her phone number .

      I spoke to a guy from Orkney on Sat at Ayr Gaelic speaker & whatever your objections are to the Gaelic tongue your pissing of a large percentage of Yes voters ( Im passing on the message , dont shoot the messenger ) on both counts .

    137. twathater says:

      @ JWT 2.10pm yes I was just highlighting and reminding the readership that the uncivil service have actively worked against the interests of Scotland and Scots and their impartiality is pish

    138. robertknight says:

      Ronnie @ 4:41

      Not shooting any messengers here, but if a person, Gaelic speaker or not, is swayed by one guy’s website as to whether or not Independence is a good thing for Scotland, then we may as well all pack up and concentrate on other things because our country, whilst neither too small nor too poor, will have proven itself to be populated by the galactically stupid.

    139. Lenny Hartley says:

      O/t ch4 news bigg8ng up those go guys the White Helmets , you know the ones set up by M16 and up to their neck in gas attacks on civilians. Apparently their the good guys and Assad is bad.
      Time the channel four fact check team fact checked theire own new program

    140. Effijy says:

      I see NHS England are in dire trouble with 4 out of 119 areas missing their targets.

      Only 4 more for you to knock down Bojo!

      Without use of a crystal ball or local soothsayer I can predict a very severe winter in the not too distant future were many thousands will have no access to medical support in England.

      Although the Tories Red or Blue will be very sympathetic this will present them with the opportunity to advise that the only hope for medical treatment is to seek help from our American cousins and their medical insurance policies that will be
      cost friendly right up until you are ill for more than a day and need more than Aspirin.

      Can you just imagine if these deplorable stats belonged to NHS Scotland?

    141. Petra says:

      @ Rev. Stuart Campbell says at 2:05 pm …. “I also miss Nana’s links, was she banned or did she stop for another reason. Has anyone seen her posting elsewhere?”

      She wasn’t banned. I told her about a hundred times not to repeat-post stuff if it gets held up in the filters because it makes my life absolute hell, she kept ignoring me, I finally lost my temper and yelled at her a bit and she stomped off in a huff.”

      ……

      I don’t ever remember you telling Nana a hundred times over not to repost anything at all (I read every post). You are havering, Stu. What I do remember is that after posting on here for many years all of a sudden her posts were being put into moderation. You must have done that. Only you, Stu, had control over that. So what had changed?

      Yes you did lose your temper to the point that you ‘YELLED” at her on here, a women, in a way that her own husband wouldn’t speak to her in her own home. In a way that I’m sure that you didn’t speak to Alex Salmond when you spoke to him. Time for you to get a bl**dy grip of yourself Stu.

      As to Nana I would reckon that she doesn’t take the”huff’ with anyone at all. She’s MUCH bigger than that, ”much bigger” than you Stu in fact. Your comment of ”HUFF’ should be turned into the word ”HURT”. Hurt because she worked her backside on here and you treated her like you know what. Mr unfairness and injustice right enough.

      After your articles that support Independence (some of them or not now!) Nana’s links were absolutely invaluable on here. She was a threat (following Nicola Sturgeon and you) to the Establishment and someone clearly wanted rid of her, imo. So who is it?

      If not you, time to hold out the olive branch to her. If not you you owe her at the very least an apology.

    142. Cactus says:

      Guid luck with your appeal Rev, many helpful btl comments suggested

      And then there’s the doom-gloomers, try THIS doom-gloomers:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weS19eV9OUE

      “Ommmmm” to the above

      Screw ’em

    143. Nana says:

      I was told last evening my name had been mentioned on here so I thought I should come in and say hello.

      If Stu as he says reads the posts he would have seen the times I was having trouble and could easily have responded by perhaps asking me for an explanation. I tried my best to explain the difficulties I was having, site not loading when attempting to post, site sticking yet telling me I had ‘already said that’ or ‘duplicate post’ yet nothing appearing and ‘post in moderation’ to which I was alerting wingers to check back.

      It took time to prepare links, archiving where possible and trying to make sure there were no banned words etc, only to find my time wasted. I came along each morning in the hope that someone could be persuaded by a bit on information within a link and from feedback received over the years that did indeed happen.

      A little support from the blog master would have been welcome and I’m sure the problems I was having with posting could have been overcome. Not being a computer wizard left me bewildered and confuddled. Three different computers have had a kicking of late!

      I am busy elsewhere for our cause and will always have an affection for this site as being here helped me retain some sanity. Blimey I’ve been here since almost the beginning, I hope readers will have found some of my links helpful or amusing and sometimes both.

      Wishing each and every one of you all the very best.
      Please get out and talk to people, I find that to be our best tool…..conversation for conversion ?

      PS Rev Stu, good luck with the appeal.

    144. Bill McLean says:

      Great to read you again Nana – if not stuffed with news that I so looked foward to every morning. Be happy and healthy! All will resolve itself! Despite the many differences displayed by Wingers we will win in the end and Scotland will be free with much gratitude to yourself and the Rev and many others!

    145. Hackalumpoff says:

      @ Petra
      Thanks for your post supporting Nana but the original havering exaggeration was even more Trumpesque:

      “Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      17 June, 2019 at 4:56 pm
      Seriously, how many THOUSANDS OF FUCKING TIMES do I have to tell people not to repeat-post?”

      This, readers from the man who, on the Alex Salmond show stated I don’t swear on my blog.

    146. Croompenstein says:

      hi Nana hope you are keeping well

    147. Hackalumpoff says:

      Hi Croompenstein
      She is doing OK, out on the warpath, so I am dog sitting. If you are ever up our way give us a shout.

    148. David McDowell says:

      Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu said: “He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight”.

      So grit your teeth and pay the costs, and put the money raised for a possible appeal into battles where you cannot simply be denied victory by so-called “impartial adjudicators” who are, in fact, on the side of your opponent.

      If this so-called “case” proved anything, it’s that suing people for defamation in a Scottish court is a “Heads I win, Tails you lose” proposition if you happen to be a supporter of Scottish independence.

    149. William says:

      Appeal against this . I am good for £100 to help with your costs.
      I am sure you will be able to raise a lot more then Ms Kes .



    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