The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The severed baby

Posted on April 17, 2019 by

My legal team and I have just received, unexpectedly early, the sheriff’s verdict in my defamation case against Kezia Dugdale. The short and paraphrased version is that yes, she did defame me by inaccurately calling me a homophobe, but because she’s an idiot who doesn’t know what words mean, she’s allowed to, so we lose.

Some key passages of the 37-page judgement are appended below.

We’re surprised and disappointed that despite the sheriff finding that I’m NOT a homophobe, and that it WAS defamatory to call me one (“the article is accordingly defamatory of the pursuer”), the judgement has gone in Kezia Dugdale’s favour.

In almost every sense that the case was brought, we’ve actually won. I sought to defend my reputation against a false accusation of homophobia, to establish that I’m not a homophobe, and to prevent anyone from being able to make such claims in future. All of those aims have been upheld, in explicit terms, by this judgement.

Dugdale had claimed that she’d only said a single tweet was homophobic, not that I was a homophobe in general. The sheriff rejected that and noted that any reasonable person reading the article would have concluded I was being called a homophobe.

Dugdale’s lawyer also – curiously and contradictorily – advanced the defence that the allegation that I was a homophobe was true. The sheriff also dismissed this.

Finally Dugdale’s QC said that even if the article was defamatory, I couldn’t technically be defamed by anything as my reputation was so terrible it couldn’t be lowered. The sheriff threw this out too.

The sheriff found that “Ms Dugdale could [not] explain why the tweet was homophobic” by any known definition of the term (and nor could her witness Colin Macfarlane of Stonewall Scotland, despite that organisation’s own definition being used in court) yet found her belief that it was to be fair on the grounds that she took an “impressionistic” approach to the meanings of words.

That is, Dugdale’s feelings about what homophobia is trump the actual meaning of the word. It was on that basis that he found in her favour on the grounds of “fair comment”, while repeatedly emphasising that the comments were wrong.

My team and I will come to a decision on what course of action to take next after fully digesting and considering the judgement.

Print Friendly

    636 to “The severed baby”

    1. Dr Jim says:

      @Robert Peffers 9:15pm

      Now wouldn’t that just put the tin lid on it

    2. CameronB Brodie says:

      If we’re getting all holier than thou, this dolt of a Sheriff appears to need remedial re-edumication. 🙂

      Virtues and Their Vices
      Virtue in Political Thought: On Civic Virtue in Political Liberalism

      In this essay, we discuss civic virtue in political theory. In particular, we discuss civic virtue in perfectionist and anti-perfectionist political theories; such theories differ markedly with respect to their accounts of the role and content of civic virtue. Given that anti-perfectionists do not think the state should aim to promote a particular view of the good life (e.g. John Rawls), one might question whether anti-perfectionist political theories include or are compatible with an account of civic virtue at all.

      We aim to address this question by providing the groundwork for a politically liberal account of civic virtue. Political liberalism, we think, is the most defensible form of anti-perfectionism, and we claim its central tenets provide a substantive basis from which to develop an account of civic virtue.

      Keywords: civic virtue, political liberalism, perfectionism, anti-perfectionism, Rawls

      http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645541.001.0001/acprof-9780199645541-chapter-20

    3. CameronB Brodie says:

      geeo
      Nah your just a narrow minded individual who fails to recognise good advice when they see it.

    4. yesindyref2 says:

      I see Andrew Wilson is quoting from the widely discredited Edinburgh University survey, that showed that 8 times as many women voted in IndyRef1 as men. Riiigght.

      Here’s a gem from his article, quoting that discredited survey:

      Remarkably, a majority (53%) of people born in Scotland voted for independence.“.

      But from this – the Census

      https://scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ethnicity-identity-language-and-religion

      83% were born in Scotland“. That’s 832% of all people living here were born here.

      So 53% of 83% of the population voted YES = 43.99%. So the remaining 0.7% of the electorate that voted YES (44.7%) was all not born in Scotland. So of the 17% of the whole population not born in Scotland, only 4% voted YES?

      You what?

      That’s NOT what other results in the survey showed.

      So basically Edinburgh Uni can’t do maths.

    5. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Liz g @ 21:04 among others,

      I despair sometimes at how anyone who supposedly really cares about independence would want to bring divisive irrelevancies to the table. Monarchy, religion, you name it. We see it again and again, people who wish to impose their own personal hobbyhorses onto a campaign which has absolutely nothing to do with their self-serving fancies. (And who often do it in an arrogant way to boot.)

      I don’t give a flying fig in particular about what anyone believes about matters spiritual, because an independent Scotland will (rightly) be a secular state which has no power whatever to impose itself upon a citizen’s beliefs and practices of whatever kind.

      But I do care very much if any loose-mouthed partisan from whatever camp says anything to disillusion or disaffect anyone of a different belief system from supporting (and ultimately voting for) this one thing we supposedly all want.

      That should be staringly obvious to any true supporter, yet we keep getting these corrosive and self-defeating “my way or the highway” intrusions on here and elsewhere. It’s self-indulgent at best, and something intentionally toxic at worst, despicably parasitical and thoroughly counter-productive. Fools and knaves.

      The name of the game right now is winning converts, dammit, not inventing crass personal metaphysical crusades that achieve the very opposite.

    6. schrodingers cat says:

      Robert J. Sutherland says:
      I hae ma doots about a strategy that is dependent on getting 50%+1 of votes in any conventional multipolar election, if that’s what you are saying, because the BritNat opposition will inevitably turn their majoritanianism on its head and argue that it needs to be 50% of the registered electorate. So just as in 1979, the disengaged and the dead will vote.
      ================

      we got 49.5% in 2015

      we need 50%+1 of all votes cast whether that is in an election or a ref, whatever comes first.

      we have no mandate for indy until we do

      you may be right that wm may try to move the goalposts but that is a bridge that we will cross if it ever happens

      it is possible that

    7. stu mac says:

      @defo says:
      18 April, 2019 at 8:45 pm

      John Knox insisting on universal education (so we could read the sky god story for ourselves, in Scots) was one, rather fundamental exception to your rule.

      As a pedant I have to point out that until recently the bible had never been published in Scots. In fact the first bibles in Scotland were in Southern English and until the 20thc no Scots bibles were printed. This was one factor in the long term Anglicization of Scots writing and speech.

    8. Phronesis says:

      The dam is cracking, Brexit is a turning point for the unity of the British state, Scotland, the country, will not fall victim to the Brexit psychodrama,

      ‘Much of Conservative European policy during the last five years has been dictated by the fear of losing votes and members to UKIP. Theresa May will be suffering a double dose of this fear as she contemplates the healthy opinion polling numbers for UKIP and its sibling, the Brexit Party… Two sets of disastrous election results in the month of May could well break the dam holding back the frustration and hostility of her Conservative opponents. Jeremy Corbyn starts from a less perilous position than the Prime Minister’s but he will be uncomfortably aware that Labour risks haemorrhaging votes to the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and ChangeUK if they can plausibly accuse him of half-hearted and continued equivocation in his opposition to Brexit’

      https://fedtrust.co.uk/european-elections-in-the-uk-a-brexit-turning-point/

      Scotland must use its soft power- solidarity through building networks, diplomacy, building narratives of an attractive small country that compel others to support it internationally. An engaged citizenry can spot the charlatans who peddle the discourse of racism and discrimination, attribution and reversal to blame the victims and powerless whilst profiting from the misery created. Scotland absolutely rejects their dogma.

      https://www.sif.scot/

    9. george wood says:

      Is Geeo a spambot?

      He spends his time on here winding people up and then runs off to tell the beak when they eventually snap.

    10. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      schrodingers cat @ 21:52:

      It is possible that…

      Oops, I hope “they” haven’t got to you just before the Big Reveal… =grin=

    11. defo says:

      Corrected I stand Stu mac

    12. geeo says:

      @cat. Re: RJS comments on WM “moving the Goalposts”

      The idea that any matter asked of a legally sovereign People, requires anything other that 50% plus ONE vote, in a plebiscite of said sovereign people, is utterly risable.

      Say the % suggested was 60% yet we voted 59% ?

      Anyone saying that 59% is NOT the expressed sovereign will of the People, lives in cloud cuckoo land.

      Where i do agree with RJS, is that relying on a strategy, based on winning 50%+1 vote in a GE is madness, as you stated, cat, even with 95% of the seats we won barely 50% of the vote.

      Not long to wait now anyhoo, then we can forget the british nationalists and the spammers and get down to business.

    13. Capella says:

      @ Welsh Sion – thx for the link to the court decision. I have read it with interest. That Sheriff sure isn’t going to win any awards for logic and clarity of thought. He seems full of contradictions. But will wait for another day before commenting further.

    14. geeo says:

      George wood, not got any original material ?

      0/10

    15. stuart mctavish says:

      CBB @ 19:31
      Sadly evil judgement is beyond my comprehension but clarification as to which of the protagonists you associate with Alf, which with Betty and which of the two is concluded to value thrills over safety in that fascinating link you provided is eagerly awaited 🙂

    16. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      George Wood,

      You have summed up exactly the nature of anonymous “Geeo”.

      He pops up like whack-a-mole the troll.

      I tend to ignore him after Essexexile made a perfectly reasonable point. I answered Essexexile and Teedeo the troll inserts himself/herself into the dialogue and accuses me of being a ‘suspect/unionist’ due to the questionable “company I keep”. Geeo assumes the role of wannabe moderator. But with no skill nor self-awareness.

      Best ignore it.

    17. CameronB Brodie says:

      Time for more of the backstory of Anglo-American legal philosophy? I know this is Scots law we are discussing, but the logic applies.

      The “Hart-Dworkin” Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed

      For the past four decades, Anglo-American legal philosophy has been preoccupied – some might say obsessed – with something called the “Hart-Dworkin” debate. Since
      the appearance in 1967 of “The Model of Rules I,” Ronald Dworkin’s seminal critique of H. L. A. Hart’s theory of legal positivism, countless books and articles have been written either defending Hart against Dworkin’s objections or defending Dworkin against Hart’s defenders.2

      Recently, in fact, there has been a significant uptick in enthusiasm for the debate from its already lofty levels, an escalation no doubt attributable to the publication of the second edition of The Concept of Law, which contained Hart’s much anticipated, but alas posthumous, answer to Dworkin in a postscript. Predictably, the postscript generated a vigorous metadebate about its cogency, with some arguing that Hart was wrong to reply to Dworkin in the way thathe did3 and others countering that such criticisms of Hart are unfounded.4

      In this essay, I will not take sides in this controversy over Hart’s reply to Dworkin. I will be interested, rather, in a more preliminary matter, namely, in attempting to set out the basic subject matter of the debate. My chief concern, therefore, will be to identify the core issue around which the Hart-Dworkin debate is organized. Is the debate, for example, about whether the law contains principles as well as rules? Or does it concern whether judges have discretion in hard cases? Is it about the proper way to interpret legal texts in the American legal system? Or is it about the very possibility of conceptual jurisprudence?

      https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Shapiro_Hart_Dworkin_Debate.pdf

    18. Capella says:

      The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

      Thats another favourite.

    19. yesindyref2 says:

      You have to wonder if we’re between Heaven and Hell, or in the Age of Reason. Poor Damaged Souls!

    20. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      schrodingers cat @ 21:52,
      geeo @ 22:13,

      As I already mentioned, in comparison to an IR, a UKGE is especially difficult to successfully prosecute because it involves many distractional political cross-currents and especially-skewed main-party media emphasis. The so-called “WM effect”.

      But a majority of votes cast would be substantive, were it to happen. It would still be challenged by the losing BritNats though, invoking the dead and the feckless.

    21. yesindyref2 says:

      May is a Klingon. That’s what I think about the chances of a resignation and leadership election, or a GE. She’ll see it through till the bitter end.

      Everybody underestimates her for some reason. First rule of warfare is to study the opposing general – without blinkers.

    22. Effijy says:

      Is it Fair Comment to say that Kez-troll Dippy the Dug is just an ordinary citizen who picked up £30,000 for appearing in “Get me out of here I’M A CELEBRITY” while abandoning her constituency?

      Well not really her constituency they didn’t vote for her, she has a seat thanks to the Westminster enforced voting system designed to ensure idiots like her take SNP seats by the back door

      Do you remember she said she would never take a seat that way!

      Loved her special moments like when SNP debated and end to tourist air passenger tax to bring in more tourism, she continually argued that she would stop this and use the “Extra Money” on a hundred different projects.

      Also laughed my self silly at her claim to check her facts on line. If you did you found out she was lying or potentially too stupid to understand so fair comment again. lol

    23. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      yesindyref2 @ 22:41,

      I agree. I continue to reckon we’ll get a GE only after May and the Tories have a Brexit “win” to boast about. Directly after. Until then it would be electoral suicide for them.

    24. Mad Unionist says:

      The Scottish Parliament closing down tomorrow would be a great saving and more money for public services. The NI Assembly is effectively closed down but the politicians are being paid for doing nothing. Then we have the Welsh and London Assembly. The taxpayer is being taken for mugs. The massive representation of politicians has done nothing for the people.

    25. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’ll just keep doing my thing as I know a bit about ethical individualism and stuff.

      Explaining Value: and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy
      Moral Agent and Impartial Spectator

      A standard objection to impartial spectator theories of morality is that they offer an aesthetic, critic?centred conception of morality, and so cannot adequately account for moral motivation and the way morality presents itself to an agent. The issue arose in the eighteenth century for Hutcheson, Hume, and Smith. Smith provided an elegant account of why agents might be motivated to act in ways that impartial spectators would approve of, an account that is premised on an insightful critique of Hume’s theory of sympathy.

      Keywords: David Hume, impartial spectator, morality, Adam Smith, sympathy

      http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198238045.001.0001/acprof-9780198238041-chapter-11

    26. CameronB Brodie says:

      @Scottish Law Society
      You may want to reflect on which direction of travel this judgement suggests? Perhaps you feel your actions are divorced from politics? Perhaps you need a top-to-bottom review of your theory and practice.

      ARENDT’S POLITICAL THOUGHT:
      THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRUTH AND POLITICS

      https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A37675/datastream/PDF/view

    27. schrodingers cat says:

      Robert J. Sutherland
      geeo

      perhaps i’m not being clear enough, this isnt the only strategy

      eu election
      eg, we get 45% of the vote and get 3 meps

      we dont have a mandate for indy but that doesnt stop us pursuing a s30 and or organising indyref2?

      the same is true for a ge
      eg we get 45% of the vote and get 32 mps

      we dont have a mandate for indy but that doesnt stop us pursuing a s30 and or organising indyref2?

      they can try and stop referendums but they cant stop elections?

    28. PacMan says:

      Phronesis says: 18 April, 2019 at 10:06 pm

      Scotland must use its soft power- solidarity through building networks, diplomacy, building narratives of an attractive small country that compel others to support it internationally. An engaged citizenry can spot the charlatans who peddle the discourse of racism and discrimination, attribution and reversal to blame the victims and powerless whilst profiting from the misery created. Scotland absolutely rejects their dogma.

      https://www.sif.scot/

      I’ve been lurking as always in this forum and have been contemplating posting on the outcome of the Rev’s case for the last day.

      The revs case resonates with me because a few years ago I was dragged into a work disciplinary dispute where homophobic allegations were brought in. I can’t go into specifics but I can only say they weren’t true.

      All I can see is it has soured by view on equality. However, all I can say is that I support the notion of equality with the above comment from the poster which best posts the view that we take forward until a better position can be found.

      There is no doubt there is a crisis at this present time but who do we trust, those who taken Scotland forward or who like Dugdale who doesn’t even know what homophobia is or the Telegraph who exploits a sensitive subject like trans rights for purely partly political advantage?

      There is a lot of unknowns at the moment but how do we trust, our politicians or newspapers?

    29. schrodingers cat says:

      lets face it, if the tories elect a no deal pm, whether or not he calls a ge, we will then know what brexit means.

      i’m not saying we should give up on indyref2, im saying that when wm swings to the right, we should change our tact, no more fighting elections on a manifesto designed to show how competent the snp are in government, we make indy the centre and sole focus of any manifesto.

      realistically, we will have eu elections and probably a ge to fight before we could organise indyref2, s30 or not.

      i cant see what we have to lose?

    30. Benhope says:

      AT a very frustrating and depressing time for Indy supporters I am trying to find some good news.

      No 1 Unionist Jackie Bird gone last week.
      No 2 Unionist Alex McLeish gone today (with approx £1 million in his back pocket ).

      Can we have No 3 Unionist Archie MacPherson removed from Radio Jockland football punditry as a bonus. Yes, I knew Jock Stein – pompous, waffling, balloon !

    31. Liz g says:

      Robert J Sutherland @ 9.49
      Well….that’s quite an amount to address.
      Firstly .. and for the umpteenth time,these conversations are about dictating to other posters what they can and cannot say in a post.
      By demonstrating that one set of beliefs doesn’t trump another.The subject matter of the debate is irrelevant to it But it was the thing that was used to belittle another poster. A poster who as far as I can mind doesn’t post very often and who was posting in support of the Rev!
      Secondly.. you are skating close to doing That very same thing yourself Robert J,the discussion went where it went as discussion often does.This narrative of what can and cannot be spoken about for fear of alienating voter’s is pretty thin.We all exchanged views and with the exception of the “your mother and father would be So proud” deflection tactic,only opposing opinions were exchanged no personal insults were traded.Therefore I find it hard to believe anyone and more to the point a Wings reader s that fragile?
      Wings is known for robust debate and we have covered many,many subjects over the year’s.I would have thought you would agree that the old narrative of not discussing Politics and Religion IS the Problem and wouldn’t buy it.
      And lastly….. What makes you so sure that Scotland will be a secular state after Indy? If you think for a minute the religions won’t try to gain some sort of special privilege in Scotland then I wish I had your confidence.To be discussing what people believe and more importantly why they believe it is a necessary conversation to have if we want the secular state you speak of!
      And that starts right back at the point I was originally making… no one should be telling anyone (with the exception of the Rev) what they can’t and cannot say here!
      And that also includes what subjects are discussed.
      It’s an adult site with robust discussion and strong opinions any potential yes voter has other choices and yet the numbers continue to rise.It’s also worth pointing out that the sort of discussion myself and the others were having also take place on many platforms and with well known and educated figures.They are regularly broadcast and apparently very popular….. Yet you’d deny that to Wings…??
      Well at least I’m sure what we will be agreeing to disagree about….. You better make that drink you owe me a double now 🙂

    32. Colin Alexander says:

      schrodingers cat

      When’s the last time the SNP fought an election on a straight independence mandate?

      40 plus years ago or something like that. Even then it was a mandate to NEGOTIATE independence.

      It will NEVER happen under Ms Sturgeon, the Queen of Devolution.

    33. schrodingers cat says:

      yesindyref2 says:
      18 April, 2019 at 10:41 pm
      May is a Klingon

      correct, but latest polls showing a bad result in local and eu elections ate not good news for treeza. if corbyn walks out what then? will she just sit there?

    34. PacMan says:

      Colin Alexander says: 18 April, 2019 at 11:30 pm

      schrodingers cat

      When’s the last time the SNP fought an election on a straight independence mandate?

      40 plus years ago or something like that. Even then it was a mandate to NEGOTIATE independence.

      It will NEVER happen under Ms Sturgeon, the Queen of Devolution.

      Thank you for your opinion.

    35. CameronB Brodie says:

      Liz g
      An indy Scotland will almost certainly be a secular state, it’s not really a rational proposal that it would be otherwise. However, it isn’t really advisable to separate public administrative law from moral reason (see Brexit).

      Secular Morality after Foundations:
      Moral Pluralism, Christianity, and the Culture Wars

      https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/kfg-normenbegruendung/intern/publikationen/_fellows/38_engelhardt_-_secular_morality_after_foundations.pdf

    36. North chiel says:

      “ Mad Unionist @1053pm “ . How about keeping open the Scottish Parliament, Welsh , N. Ireland and London assemblies , and closing down Westminster HOC and HOL ? Now that would be a REAL SAVING !

    37. Dr Jim says:

      The Scottish government can do what they want or challenge what they want, at this time they’re choosing not to do so I reckon they know something we don’t know, and we won’t know until it’s time to tell us, and they may not even choose to do that

      Until something happens we can guess strategise pontificate, but this is something probably only four or five people within the party actually know, and they’ll never tell, that mistake’s been made before

      It seems to me it’s all about do you trust or do you not

      If the SNP get it right they’ll be forever national heroes, but if they get it wrong the word ignominy will not cover it and that’s why I find it hard to conceive failure

      There is the school of thought shared joyously by the Unionists that the SNP don’t actually want Independence for Scotland, that one I find impossible to swallow because if that were the case the SNP would know for certain that 100.000 members would vanish overnight and the existing support would dissipate just as quickly for being let down so badly by the party who promised to do the best they could to achieve the goals of the people who signed up their time and cash right along with them for those goals

      So on balance the SNP will do as they say they will or lose everything then nobody wins and everybody (even the Unionists who don’t know it) loses

      Also the collective forces of the Unionist media and parties wouldn’t be so damn stressed out and panicky if they thought nothing was going to happen

    38. yesindyref2 says:

      And sell off Westminster to the Yanks. They’d love it in the Mojabe Desert.

      @Cat
      All the more reason May won’t call a GE – or try to get her own party to commit sudoko (yes I know). Don’t know what you mean about Corbyn, is he off to the Welsh hills for inspiration?

    39. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Liz g @ 23:25,

      I wasn’t getting at you in particular, Liz, but your present response does invite a brief and gentle rebuttal, if I may. Of course we could discuss anything under the sun, and sometimes doing so does lead us into interesting and quite innocuous tangents where we can even learn stuff. All of which is fair enough. Maybe after independence a website like this could continue to do so, to mutual advantage.

      But my essential point here, on which I happen to agree with Petra, is that in the meantime, before that happy event, we each have a responsibility not to self-indulge in manifestly counterproductive diversions, and thereby do damage to the very cause we claim to support.

      It’s not about anyone suppressing alternative views, as you perhaps assume. I have waxed on that very subject myself. Rather it’s an appeal to everyone on here to exercise appropriate self-discipline. That’s all.

      You better make that drink you owe me a double now ?

      Heh, heh, no problem! =grin=

    40. Cactus says:

      See what ye’ve innocently started Brotyboy 😉

      A commonly used ‘figure of speech’ was interpreted and perceived by Hamish100 as being offensive, to himself only… and then it all blossomed frae there on… what if Rev had used said phrase on the Wings twitter account, would people have been equally offended?

      In a way it’s good that the religion debate has resurfaced again, nothing should be on the taboo list for discussion

      Remember, this IS an adult site

      We own midnight

    41. Dr Jim says:

      I think Corbyn is doing the same thing as May, playing for time, but Corbyn’s problem is bigger than May’s because he’s tring to appear not racist and that makes him appear not racist enough

      England is split right down the middle now between a bit racist and a lot racist, but the Tories don’t mind being racist because that’s a major part of their vote share, pensioner hatred of everybody that’s not them, whereas Corbyn’s mob are trying to appear selectively racist depending on who the public wants rid of the most, and if you vote us in we’ll get rid of them (honest we promise) and England’s politics are too polarised for that ambiguous hatred they want full on bitterness or you don’t get our vote, that’s why they warmed to Farage, good old fashioned English values of hate the foreigner, and we know the newspapers lap that stuff up down south

      This Brexit delay won’t calm anything down it’s merely serving to give more time to the hate frenzy that’s to come

      Watch for the BNP EDL Tommy Robinson head case brigade and more taking over the English airwaves on this because they now been given the time to organise and it’ll be hell down there

      Then again maybe that’s exactly what the Tories want using national emergency powers to do it with
      You can’t put anything past the Tories, if they think they can get away with something they’ll do it

    42. yesindyref2 says:

      I was always taught that there are three things you don’t talk about in a pub:

      1). Religion
      2). Football
      3). Politics

      Well, this is a political blog …

    43. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      schrodingers cat @ 23:33,

      Yes. That’s what she does.

      (It’s kinda unique, but it’s got her (and us) to where we are now. Why quit when you’re behind?!)

    44. Cubby says:

      Mad Unionist @10.53pm

      The real saving of money would be Scottish independence as Scotlands revenues would no longer go to Westminster and be pissed away by incompetents.

      So you really are a mad unionist. Thankfully not all unionists are mad and plenty continue to see that the union is no Union but a one sided dictatorship. The UK has done nothing for the people of Scotland.

    45. CameronB Brodie says:

      We live in a secular society but it is not that long ago that moral reason and law was based on theology. Like, extremely recently. Especially from the perspective of evolutionary psychology.

      Natural law is a curative for legal positivism and is foundational to the concept of human rights.

      The Way to the Secularisation of the Natural Law

      The concept of natural law belongs to the most important ethical theories from Antiquity to contemporary philosophy. Interpretations of this theory are often limited to the form that has its origin in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Such an approach is meaningful partly because his concept of the natural law is highly-developed and holds a significantly eminent place in the field of the history of philosophy and of legal systems.2

      Aquinas’s exposition however is situated in a theological framework, which is a stumbling block for those who do not accept a Christian point of view. Some authors consider these theological roots of natural law theory as necessary,3 but many authors strive to propose a secular form of natural law theory that would be acceptable even for those who are not in agreement with the theological premises.

      It needs emphasising that Aquinas’s natural law theory is not grounded in specifically Christian doctrinal principles. It only presupposes the existence of God who is the intelligent Creator of all reality. However, even this can be a problem for some readers and thus some effort to purge the natural law of all reference to God can be well motivated – not only today, but also in the past.

      An interesting example of such secularisation of natural law theory is the early modern clause etiamsi daremus non esse Deum (even if God did not exist), which was not used by atheists but very often by Christian theologians. In the concluding years of the Middle Ages natural law theory had not lost its meaning, but was developed as a response to the new challenges.

      An important impulse for the new development of natural law theory was the discovery of the New World and the consequent social problems connected with a just approach to the native people. The second impulse was the new Protestant thinking and its scepticism concerning the human natural powers that were according to Protestants so much affected by original sin that they were not reliable any more…..

      filcasop.flu.cas.cz/uploaded/Dvorak/Machula.pdf

    46. Liz g says:

      Robert J Sutherland @ 11.57
      A gentle rebuttal is it…
      Well that double just became a triple ha!!!
      🙂

    47. Cubby says:

      Benhope @11.24pm

      Sorry but don’t understand all this depressing and frustrated stuff. I could understand this if we were in the 1950s when there was hardly any support for Scottish independence but we are not. It’s 2019 and we have an SNP government in a Scottish parliament and we are nearly there re independence.

      So get a grip all you doom and gloom merchants. Try thinking twice before posting negative comments.

    48. Cubby says:

      Liz g@12.19pm

      I think you should just go for a nice bottle of Rock Rose gin.

    49. Cubby says:

      Yesindyref2@12.08am

      Correction. no.2 should be Rugby not football.

    50. schrodingers cat says:

      @dads
      no
      i was merely pointing out, as guy verhofsdat did, if these meetings between treea and corbyn were so important…………
      why is treeza on a walking holiday in wales? why the news black out on there progress?

      because the snp have a conference before wm returns. thss position of limbo undermines nicola

      for soon treeza and the hoc will need to make some sort of decision, and they will, just not before the snp conference. why? because this limbo period is undermining support in the snp

      its called politics dads

    51. schrodingers cat says:

      Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Yes. That’s what she does.

      (It’s kinda unique, but it’s got her (and us) to where we are now. Why quit when you’re behind?!)

      ———————-

      😛

    52. Cactus says:

      OK, allow me to share another example of a ‘figure of speech’
      “OMG” represents and stands for… “Oh My God”

      This has now evolved into
      “OMFG” which represents and stands for… “Oh My Fucking God”

      Two questions:
      1) Is anyone offended by the above figure of speech OMFG?
      2) If so, which parts is it that are seen as offensive?

      If anybuddy does find it offensive, try telling that to every 3 out of 4 teenagers, cause that’s what they’re all saying these days

      Ahhh, remember when the auld “OMG” stood for “Oh My Gosh”

      “SASMBMBBNWNHM” (clue: it’s a saying)

      Everything changes

    53. CameronB Brodie says:

      Cactus
      Swearing and course language are still something of a cultural taboo, and often considered an indication of low IQ. It’s a moral issues thing, yah bass.

      Analysing Political Discourse
      Theory and practice

      voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Analysing-political-discourse-Theory-and-Practice-by-Paul-Chilton.pdf

    54. Cactus says:

      Aweright Cameron yah bass hehe

      Aye, very true, many people are primed to look down and never challenge what they are taught, THIS is changing out of natural necessity, after independence it will re-settle

      Wait and see if Brexit happens and what ‘words’ The People will be saying if the Tories try to rip us out of the European Union

    55. CameronB Brodie says:

      Getting back on topic re. the law and it’s effective value.

      Concerning The Hart And Dworkin Debate

      ….Jurisprudence is the study of the nature of law, one of the main questions that may occur in a person’s mind is ‘what is law?’. John Austin made this question a focus of his attention and in the late ninetieth century Austin’s views were established as a dominant force within English legal thinking, and his work within jurisprudence has been regarded in the Anglo-American tradition as the leading work in opposition to the natural law theory.

      Austin’s notion of law, as orders backed by threats of sanctions, with the fundamental legitimacy of the legal system resting on a general ‘habit of obedience’, was so simplistic that it would have been difficult not to improve on it. His legal positivism sees the issue of laws reducing to the issue of who sets the rule or command and how it is enforced. This has been criticised (including principally by Hart) as “the gunman situation writ large”. Austin most certainly did not set out to arrive at an analysis of law conterminous with the bully-boy situation [4] . He was, however, dissatisfied with much of the fairly vacuous and impenetrable material which was being taught and in British universities. Austin’s was seen as a back-to-basics approach to the analysis of law.

      Austin himself was a disciple of Bentham and both Austin and Bentham represent the classical school of English legal positivism, which are often regarded as misguided. Bentham sought to subject the common law to the cold light of reason, he attempted to demystify the common law and to expose what actually lay behind the mask [5] . The law itself at the time was a perplexing network of technical rules created by lawyers and judges, which seemed to serve their own interests.

      Bentham devoted a significant portion of his onslaught against the common law tradition to the theory of common law and the extent to which the theory itself differed from actual practice. In the eighteen century the common law was considered to be an expression of immemorial custom and long standing practice which embodied natural reason.

      For Bentham the law lay quite simply in codification and he stated that once the law was codified “ a man need but open the book in order to inform himself what the aspect borne by the law bears to every imaginable act that can come within the possible sphere of human agency” [6]. A number of points have been made concerning both Austin and Bentham, but Kelsen was seen by some as being the least understood of legal theorists [7] . He insisted on the separation of law and morals. His “pure” theory of law had become as important as Hart’s theory and to some represents a significant strand of modern legal positivism.

      The ‘pure’ theory is a profound statement about the way in which he states the law should be understood, he argues that it should be conceived to be a system of ‘ought’s’ or ‘norms’, but he also acknowledges that the law consists not merely of norms, but is made up of legal norms and legal acts as determined by those norms. [8] By ‘norms’ Kelsen meant that something ought to be or ought to happen, especially that an individual ought to have behaved in a specific way. [9]

      Joseph Raz another legal theorist argues that the identity and existence of any legal system can be tested by reference to three elements; sources, efficacy and institutional character. He states that law is therefore autonomous and can be identified without recourse to morality. Raz says the existence of every law and its content can be determined by a factual enquiry about conventions, institutions and the intention of the participants within the legal system. Law always concerns facts, it is never about moral judgements, and some therefore see Raz as a Hard Positivist. He believes that the law is authoritative and it guides behaviour in a way that morality cannot do, the law asserts its primacy over all other codes of conduct and is the ultimate source of authority.

      https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/concerning-the-hart-and-dworkin-debate-constitutional-law-essay.php

    56. Thepnr says:

      Whether there may be a general election or not has nothing to do with May or the Tories choosing to have one. It’s something that won’t be in their choice as it will be made for them.

      The chances of this government collapsing soon i.e in the next 3 months are high and no less than 50% in my opinion. To be honest I would expect a vote of no confidence to be called days after the EU elections results are announced.

    57. DerekM says:

      Well well i see one of our high profile “ex”unionist red tory troll converts has let his mask slip.

      Funny how Mikey boy is still talking to his green ink gang SIU pals.

      Beware the British nationalist they will pretend they are for indy and will have sleepers all over our movement maybe even in the SNP trying to split us.

      Their one goal is to end Wings they know that they can never kill indy as long as the wingers are in the front line,so they hope to have us removed by our own side.

      Divide and Conquer do not fall for it again Scotland.

    58. Liz g says:

      Chubby @ 12.19
      I like your thinking 🙂
      Unfortunately I’m usually driving on the nights out so it will likely be triple soda water and lime. LOL..

    59. Liz g says:

      Oh dear….my Facebook is showing the Belfast telegraph saying there rioting there and apparently a young woman has been shot dead..
      These Tory bastards just don’t give a shit who gets hurt in their games.

    60. boris says:

      May 20 2009; Kezia in danger of getting sued again

      a. Well that’s the last time that Tory Bear (TB the Blogger) puts up a story and then goes out for the afternoon.

      How charming to return home to being called a liar by none other than Dugdale, personal assistant to the upstanding and honourable Lord George Foulkes.

      b. Torybear put a story up earlier that he spotted on the “Tweet4Labour” Twitter feed this morning.

      With a simple  “Welcome!  the Chief Whip @nickbrownmp” Tweet4Labour drew Torybear’s attention to the fact that Nick Brown was supposedly on Twitter.

      He then took a screen grab of Brown’s feed and the rest they say is history.

      So Nick Brown’s office have denied it’s him which is hardly a surprise yet there seems to be a bit of a discrepancy in Dugdale’s logic.

      c. She instantly accuses Torybear of foul play: “It’s clearly a black op by Torybear – perhaps even endorsed by Conservative HQ – and it has largely worked.

      “Kez!!!! Torybear knows that working for Foulkes can hardly teach positive moral values and a respect for the law, but that is libel plain and simple and it needs to be retracted.

      You have made a shoddy assumption and you have absolutely sod all to back up your claims. (Torybear)

      d. Comment:  Dugdale acting first and thinking later. This trait will land her in big trouble one day. My observation was prophetic.

      Read the full article

      https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/22/dugdales-victory-though-pyrrhic-could-have-been-denied-her-if-the-judge-had-read-my-article-exposing-her-as-a-political-opportunist-and-charlatan/

    61. Mad Unionist says:

      Cubby 12:12am. The Unionists vote for the Union so they must be mad!So what did the UK do for Scotland? Got rid of the Clans, Charlie and the Vatican fascists.!Shared economic growth! Freedom of worship or not! Intermarriage with the English! Fought Napoleon and Hitler. Leaving the EU!

    62. CameronB Brodie says:

      That post by boris just begs for me to do my worst. 😉

      Beyond the banality of evil: conscience, imagination and responsibility

      Abstract

      Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to revisit philosopher Hannah Arendt’s classic study of the banality of evil in light of posthumously published works bearing on moral psychology and philosophy.

      Design/methodology/approach – Largely expository and interpretive, this conceptual paper articulates Arendt’s approach to morally responsible thinking, with an emphasis on managerial decision making. Arendt’s practical ethics draws, in part, on Kantian aesthetic theory, providing an original but unfinished account of “the life of the mind” and personal responsibility in community.

      Findings – Arendt contends that humans can, and are morally obliged to, use conscience, imagination and reason to avoid evil?doing; that self?critical introspection, active imagination and representative judgment are essential for moral decision making, especially in times of moral crisis; and that neither profit nor pressure can justify breaching fundamental responsibilities to humanity.

      Research limitations/implications – This paper discusses, but does not critique, Arendt’s oeuvre. It interprets, connects and applies ideas from disparate works relating to responsible moral psychology.

      Practical implications – Confronting a “modern crisis” in values, Arendt acknowledged pressures on leaders to fulfill organizational objectives, even those effecting harm which violate deeply?held personal ethics. Warning against temptations to divide selves into a “personal” moral self and a compartmentalized “organisational self,” she prescribed ways of thinking and judging to counteract thoughtless evil?doing.

      Originality/value – The paper connects Arendt’s privative analysis of evil?doing in Eichmann in Jerusalem with later works which delineate shared human mental capacities and processes which facilitate morally responsible leadership, independent of culture or context.

      Keywords:
      Ethics, Psychology, Philosophy, Leadership, Hannah Arendt, Banality of evil, Thoughtlessness, Thinking, Judgement

      https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/02621711211226079?fullSc=1

    63. Thepnr says:

      The MSM are trumpeting Kezia’s victory, it is no more than a hollow victory though and has cost her the support of the Labour party and more I would imagine.

      The Rev and Wings have won a moral victory and shown that it was right to challenge a politicians attack on an ordinary blogger accusing him of something the Sheriff found not to be true.

      I haven’t read the full verdict yet, only the bits published so won’t say too much other than it looks ridiculous to me when you can be found to have been defamed but the person responsible for demafing you really wasn’t because it was “fair comment”.

      I’ve a suspicion that this might linger a while yet. Last word, what the hell was Kezia Dugdale thinking of with her quotes in the Record and sound bites in the rest of the media over this case. A sensible person in her position might best have kept their head down for now and answered “no comment”.

    64. Liz g says:

      Thepnr @ 1.57
      Aye that’s what a smart person would do.LOL
      Especially since the Judge is still deciding the costs,I’m sure he is just going to love Dugdale misrepresenting his judgement.

    65. DerekM says:

      @ Thepnr

      We are already seeing the plants come creeping out they think that this is their chance to turn the indy movement against the Rev.

      But hey whats new they have been trying and failing since 2012.

      And i have said many times in the past to the yes movement either back us or get out of our way because we are not stopping for anybody,we do not ask them to like what we do or care if they think we are vile.

      Its a dirty job but someone has to do it and i do not see any of the righteous brigade stepping up to the plate to relieve us wingers who have now been in the trenches fighting British nationalists for what seems like an eternity.

    66. Dr Jim says:

      The size of Kezia Dugdale’s brain has always been offset by the size of her mouth

      And it must be a sore thing for her daddy to bear when it’s her daddy telling her

    67. Artyhetty says:

      Horrendous there was rioting in Derry earlier and a young woman was shot dead. Why are they rioting? Who is arming them? This is just dreadful news.

    68. Kangaroo says:

      Further to Robert Peffers highlighting the judicial review case which purports that the UK left the EU on 29th March here is a relevant link to the article and court submission. This is effectively another Gina Miller case and is trying to prove that the WM Gov did not have the power to extend the deadline beyond 29 March. This has massive ramifications for the independence situation and may cause further delay in calling a referendum.

      http://robintilbrook.blogspot.com/2019/04/declaration-that-united-kingdom-left.html

    69. Robert Louis says:

      Monty Python got it about right, regarding ‘swearing’ in the film ‘Life of Brian’.

      ‘Stoning scene’.

      CROWD OF WOMEN: yelling

      JEWISH OFFICIAL: Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath,…

      MATTHIAS: Do I say ‘yes’?

      STONE HELPER #1: Yes.

      MATTHIAS: Yes.

      OFFICIAL: …you have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,…

      CROWD: Ooooh!

      OFFICIAL: …you are to be stoned to death.

      CROWD: Ahh!

      MATTHIAS: Look. I– I’d had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, ‘That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.’

      CROWD: Oooooh!

      OFFICIAL: Blasphemy! He’s said it again!

      CROWD: Yes! Yes, he did! He did!…

      OFFICIAL: Did you hear him?!

      and then…

      MATTHIAS: Look. I don’t think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying ‘Jehovah’.

      CROWD: Oooh! He said it again! Oooh!…

      OFFICIAL: You’re only making it worse for yourself!

      MATTHIAS: Making it worse?! How could it be worse?! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!

      CROWD: Oooooh!…

      OFFICIAL: I’m warning you. If you say Jehovah once more…

      Source

      http://www.montypython.50webs.com/scripts/Life_of_Brian/5.htm

    70. Jock McDonnell says:

      Nope, still not seeing how this is a victory for Dugdale. Yoonstream spinning of course but she was found to have committed defamation- the very thing she was accused of.
      The only ‘victory’ for her was that the judge showed leniency because she didn’t understand what she was saying & in her own head she said what she thought was true.

    71. One_Scot says:

      Jock, great comment. She will be viewed by the neutral as an idiot who the judge felt sorry for. Hardly a victory in my book.

    72. Bill McLean says:

      Hope this has not been posted before, apologies if so. “Kezia Dugdale – the Donald Trump of Scottih politics”!! On a more serious note – this blog is full of people with in depth political history knowledge and brilliant opinions – you don’t have to agree with everything.Some of us unfortunately are playing into our enemies’ sleekit hands by falling out amongst ourselves. Our differences will be seized upon by those who would deny Scotland it’s right to freedom and self-determination. Their success has always depended on “divide and rule”. Please don’t help them!!

    73. sassenach says:

      A lot of people are thinking that the SNP conference will ‘name the day’!!

      I very much doubt anything so specific, Nicola is in a bind until May/Corbyn make a decision on Brexit. I think they are both ‘spinning it out’ in order to cause Nicola such problems.

      Remember, Scotland staying in the “precious union” is FAR MORE important to them than exiting the EU – England could not survive without it’s cash-cow.
      So I would say, ease up on the SNP leader about these Indy decisions (at this moment) as dust has still to settle. Surely most real Indy supporters would not to too upset at a little extra wait? Let May/Corby do our job for us!

    74. Robert Louis says:

      Anyway…

      To get back to the topic of this post, pretty much everything I think about the court ruling, is stated clearly and much more eloquently by the wee ginger dug duck.

      https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/04/17/wee-ginger-duck/

    75. Breeks says:


      Stravaiger says:
      18 April, 2019 at 6:37 pm
      PS Breeks, I think 2014 was lost fair & square (pretty much), 2016 was a combination of buyer’s remorse and a two-finger salute from the safety of no actual consequence situation, and 2017 was back to business as usual, aided by the SNP taking their foot off the gas.

      Lessons indeed. Let’s learn from them.

      I wasn’t speaking in anger Stravaiger, just pointing out the Legal Constitutional route might get it wrong, (though I doubt it), but the Democratic route will almost inevitably be compromised by the same State funded indoctrination and misinformation as it was in 2014. In fact, I think it will be much worse.

      I don’t dispute the 2014 result, it stands. But it stands with the same dubious legitimacy as a jury’s verdict once several witnesses have admitted committing perjury.

      The Establishment we are pitting ourselves against hasn’t been constrained or reformed in any way since 2014, indeed it’s nefarious activities seem even bolder and unapologetic. We haven’t even landed a blow on any of it. Not one single blow. Mistrust and cynicism has grown, but the monster is unreformed in any capacity.

      I do favour our chances going the Constitutional route, because Scotland in the Declaration of Arbroath has a legitimate copy of its “birth certificate”, and centuries of history and provenance as an independent and undisputed sovereign Nation. The process of removing Scotland from where we were to where we are now is riddled with corruption, menace, and impropriety, and ultimately false legitimacy.

      I would dearly love to see that false legitimacy forensically dissected in a Court of Constitutional Law, where Scotland seeks the purity of truth, and Westminster must reconcile centuries of perfidy and colonialism, and even its own formal recognition of Scotland’s Claim of Right and the Sovereignty of the Scottish people.

      I steal myself to believe a Constitutional Courtroom will not suffer the same disparate interpretations of what “Sovereignty” actually means by definition, that we Scots steadfastly cannot seem to grasp because we are indoctrinated from birth not to grasp it.

      Maybe a Court judgement might get it wrong, but I just can’t see it. And IF we choose that Court to be the ECJ clarifying it’s own Article 50 judgement, which has already acknowledged Scots Law, and is a case centred on Scotland’s fight to remain part of the EU, it seems absurd frankly that we turn around and walk away, and place our faith in overcoming the Tsunami of BritNat disinformation and propaganda that will overshadow a referendum.

      Even on our worst day, supposing the ECJ did rule against Scotland the Nation in favour of Scotland the Region, then every lever and capacity for a peoples’ right to self determination and independence would still be available to us under UN Human Rights legislation. But Scotland doesn’t require to be born from first principle. Our Nation would be recognised.

      So too, even on our second to worst day, if there was an awkward technicality which frustrated formal recognition of Scotland’s popular sovereignty, we would have a clear and articulate benchmark which we might aspire to achieve. By that, I mean suppose the ECJ said our Sovereign Will required an explicit democratic mandate, we would have an immediate a watertight argument to prompt an immediate referendum- no more prevarication. That would dig Nicola out of the hole she dug for herself when she surrendered all the initiative in order to react to whatever Theresa May decided first.

    76. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      This is a “Victory for Dugdale” in the same way that The Ruth Davidson ‘No Surrender to IndyRef2’ Party won the last election in Scotland.

      Propaganda aimed at defending the ‘Precious Union” nothing more, nothing less.

    77. Robert Peffers says:

      @Breeks says:19 April, 2019 at 9:03 am:

      Stravaiger says:

      … I wasn’t speaking in anger Stravaiger, just pointing out the Legal Constitutional route might get it wrong, (though I doubt it), but the Democratic route will almost inevitably be compromised by the same State funded indoctrination and misinformation as it was in 2014. In fact, I think it will be much worse.”

      I’m still making no actual comment to the Breeks logic – but excuse me if I LOL at it.

    78. galamcennalath says:

      sassenach says:

      Scotland staying in the “precious union” is FAR MORE important to them than exiting the EU

      Agree completely.

      Agreeing and passing the Withdrawal Agreement should have been straightforward. (It’s the easy bit of the Brexit negotiations). Ezy-pezy. Divorce bill agreed, check. Citizen’s rights secured, check. Belfast Agreement honoured by keeping Northern Ireland closely coupled to the EU and a border in the Irish Sea … che … oh!

      But, but but, that means damaging this “precious union”, and Brexit can’t be allowed to do that. Then there’s those pesky Scots. They want to be close to the EU too, they were promised that in 2014, and they voted for it in 2016. Scots are a permanent pain in the arse but England needs their natural resources.

      And so we are where we are, IMO ALL the argy-bargy, complication and apparent indecision around Brexit is a direct result of trying to maintain the integrity of the their UK Union.

      The solution has always been there on the table – England does its own thing. That, however, means abandoning Project Greater England.

    79. Lenny Hartley says:

      According to ManxRadio, the woman shot dead in Derry last night was a very good investigative Journalist. I presume she was targeted. Now have the riots being going on reguarly? Or have the sprung up due to Brexit Tensions. We need some decent Journalism to tell us, sadly it wont be that young woman. Thoughts with her family and friends.

    80. stuart mctavish says:

      RJS yesterday @ 17:22
      I confess the word is from the Sheriff’s judgement rather than my own but its misinterpretation could go some way to explaining Bradley Manning’s road to absolution when coming out inside.

    81. jfngw says:

      Woman who deserted her constituents to appear on a TV show for wads of cash claims that person suing her is only interested in money. Oh the irony!

    82. jacks1 says:

      Cameron B Brodie:

      Thanks for the link on ARENDT’S POLITICAL THOUGHT:
      THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRUTH AND POLITICS.

      I am reading Arendt’s Essay On Violence and its relationship to Politics for one of my final OU essays. ? happy easter.

    83. Petra says:

      ‘Police say Glasgow All Under One Banner march will be too big.’

      http://www.thenational.scot/news/17584858.police-say-glasgow-all-under-one-banner-march-will-be-too-big/

      ……………………………..

      ‘Who did Scottish Labour get their arithmetically challenged propaganda from this morning for Reporting Scotland?’

      https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2019/04/19/who-did-scottish-labour-get-their-arithmetically-challenged-propaganda-from-this-morning-for-reporting-scotland/

      ………………………………

      ‘Journalist shot dead in Derry during rioting in the city.’

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47985469

    84. Petra says:

      I’ve heard it all now!

      ‘EU elections: Ukip unveil Nazi pug man as one of its candidates.’

      http://www.thenational.scot/news/17584776.eu-elections-ukip-unveil-nazi-pug-man-as-one-of-its-candidates/?ref=mr&lp=6

      ………………………………..

      ‘BBC Scotland’s Kaye Adams’ loose tax arrangements.’

      https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2019/04/19/bbc-scotlands-kaye-adams-loose-tax-arrangements/

      …………………………….

      ‘Facebook bans UK far right groups and leaders.’

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47974579

    85. Republicofscotland says:

      Petra.@10.27am.

      Yes, UKIP clutching at strawas me thinks, and lets not forget George Galloway supporting Farage.

    86. Abulhaq says:

      Identity politics and the peculiar ‘rights’ and legions of so-called phobias associated with it is a pain in the intellect. The free choice to disagree with, dislike or critique an opinion, a way of life or attitude is a measure of socio-intellectual development. By the standards of our ancestors we appear to be regressing.

    87. Abulhaq says:

      @Petra 10:27
      The mainly English phenomenon UKIP is morphing by stealth into a National Socialist party. It atracts the same marginalized and social dysfunctional element associated with the Hitlerite phenomenon. This time the internet and social media are available to them. They are also part of the collective madness associated with the fractionalism of our identity politics. They are patently ridiculous, but then so was the NSDAP in Weimar Germany. Weak and indecisive leadership and government enabled its rise from the gutter too. Sounds familiar?

    88. Dr Jim says:

      Today British Nationalists demand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP cease in their efforts to make Scotland an Independent country because it’ll lead to the same troubles in Northern Ireland that the British Nationalists caused in the first place

      There’s the slavery logic or the beaten wife syndrome for you from the British once again, stay slaves or there’ll be trouble, and you’ll have caused it because you want to be free

    89. heraldnomore says:

      Oooh, polling again Stu?

    90. Legerwood says:

      Petra @ 10.18 and 10.27am

      The Herald giving the upcoming March some publicity is one way to look at that story.

      Pug man. CH4 news covered this last night including his rape ‘joke’ Pretty disgusting stuff including their response to the CH4 reporter – female – who was covering the story. She looked upset at the responses from pug man and his crone.

    91. starlaw says:

      The Orange Lodge have now cancelled their re-directed route march in Glasgow, due to the lack of Catholic churches to vent their non-sectarian bile at.

    92. CameronB Brodie says:

      jacks1
      Best of luck. 😉

    93. Arthur Thomson says:

      It’s a shame that the legal system let us down – again. But we still win in my view. All publicity is good publicity and the Brits can never resist publicising what, for them as a bunch of losers, feels like a win. In doing so they provide publicity for us.

      Most importantly, the Indy movement has to be a movement of disparate parts. It is the role of the SNP to show a single unified political image. The role of the wider movement is to show the diversity of the movement. It is us who have to bare our collective arses to the Brits and say fuck you. Of course that will offend some people who think other approaches are better but it must go on. The ONLY thing we all have to agree on is independence. So long as we remember that there is zero scope for divide and tule.

    94. Dr Jim says:

      The British congratulate the Sudanese on their peaceful approach to freeing themselves from dictatorship

      But not you Scotland

    95. Jack Murphy says:

      Petra posted several links at 10:15am approximately. Thankyou.

      This one is particularly interesting and in my opinion is covered by “fair comment”.

      https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2019/04/19/bbc-scotlands-kaye-adams-loose-tax-arrangements/

      Random quote:

      “…….The tribunal concentrated on the written contracts between the BBC and Atholl House Productions Ltd, which required the company to provide the services of Kaye Adams to present “The Kaye Adams Programme” each weekday morning on BBC Radio Scotland.

      The contracts specified that at least 160 programmes would be presented for a minimum fee of £155,000, and any further programmes would be paid for at a rate of £968.75 per programme.

      In other words, the company was paid a “piece-rate” of £968.75 per programme……..”

      Well wort a full read.

    96. Dr Jim says:

      The purpose of the Scottish parliament is to serve the electorate
      We’re the electorate so we do the marching and the flag waving and the singing while the SNP do the politicking

    97. CameronB Brodie says:

      Here’s one for folk with the time and interest to look deeper in to legal theory.

      Constitutive Rules, Institutions and the Weightier Matters of the Law
      https://philpapers.org/archive/ATROLA.pdf

    98. CameronB Brodie says:

      And here’s another one.

      CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND LEGAL REASONING
      LAW IS “MAN MADE”
      IT CHANGES OVER TIME TO ACCOMMODATE SOCIETY’S NEEDS
      LAW IS MADE BY LEGISLATURE
      LAW IS INTERPRETED BY COURTS TO DETERMINE
      1)WHETHER IT IS “CONSTITUTIONAL”
      2)WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG
      THERE IS A PROCESS WHICH MUST BE FOLLOWED (CALLED “PROCEDURAL LAW”)
      https://www.uncfsu.edu/assets/Documents/College%20of%20Business%20and%20Economics/legal.pdf

    99. robbo says:

      Time for more polls. There’s too much blue patches still in Scotland for ma liking.

      I don’t like blue!

    100. Legerwood says:

      Just realised I had included the r word in a post which is now in moderation.

      Here is the sanitised version

      Legerwood says:
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      19 April, 2019 at 12:18 pm
      Petra @ 10.18 and 10.27am

      The Herald giving the upcoming March some publicity is one way to look at that story.

      Pug man. CH4 news covered this last night including his r*pe ‘joke’ Pretty disgusting stuff including their response to the CH4 reporter – female – who was covering the story. She looked upset at the responses from pug man and his croney.

    101. Golfnut says:

      @ breeks.

      I would love to hear the Attorney General defending the inclusion of an assumed assent clause, whether we agree or not, if as Westminster claims they don’t need consent in the first place. Lol.

    102. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Looks like my comment an The previous thread is correct @starlaw says at 12:35 pm

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-long-drop/#comment-2452121

      Remember as law abiding and good citizens of an inclusive Scotland we all have a responsibility to report any similar hate crimes we may become aware of to Polis Scotland.

    103. CameronB Brodie says:

      @Scottish Law Society
      And here’s one you lot could benefit from, IMHO.

      THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY:
      ISSUES OF RATIONALE AND APPLICATION

      The term ‘principle of legality’ has most commonly been associated with one particular common law interpretive principle — the presumption that Parliament does not intend to interfere with fundamental common law rights, freedoms and immunities. The rationale is that it is in the last degree improbable that Parliament would abrogate or curtail such matters without clear and unambiguous language.

      The principle of legality is concerned with actual legislative intention. In recent times, it has been argued that a competing rationale has emerged, and the rationale of the principle is also facing contemporary challenges. In light of this, the nature and conceptual basis of the principle is briefly discussed. Moreover, the principle of legality, despite being long established, has been criticised for lacking clarity in its scope and operation.

      The purpose of this article is to comprehensively examine the principle’s scope and operation, having regard to the above-mentioned issues of rationale. This article focuses on the subject matter protected by the principle and the principle’s strength, including whether justification and proportionality considerations can have any role to play. It identifies and analyses methodological issues which remain unsettled, reaches conclusions as to methodological inconsistencies between the principle’s rationale and its application in practice, and provides some suggestions as to how this might be rectified.

      www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2015/13.pdf

    104. Clydebuilt says:

      Judge ” Her opinion was genuine and honestly held but is, in fact, not correct”

      How does the judge know her opinion was genuine & honestly held. What if her intention from the start was simply to damage Stuart Campbell’s reputation.

      After all The Rev. Has on several occasions pointed out that Ms. Dugdale has got her facts wrong. Perhaps she was angered at this and sought revenge.

    105. Dr Jim says:

      Labour party seaks new candidotes to join it’s dynamoic teem to fite the SNP

      Lack of education or the understanding of Language an asset

    106. CameronB Brodie says:

      And this is what you get if you apply legal theory to the concept of discrimination and stuff.

      Legal Study on Homophobia and Discrimination
      on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

      fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/1367-LGBT-2010_thematic-study_SE.pdf

    107. CameronB Brodie says:

      And another one.

      How EU Law Offers Protection from
      Sexual Orientation Discrimination

      https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/1227-Factsheet-homophobia-protection-law_EN.pdf

    108. defo says:

      Enough already

    109. Sarah says:

      @Clydebuilt: I think you are right. Who are amongst the cleverest and feistiest Yes activists? Alec Salmond and the Rev. Who has been put out of visible active campaigning or at the least hampered? Alec Salmond and the Rev.

      Worrying.

    110. iainmore says:

      Don’t know what you are going to do Rev as every Press and Media outlet from the BBC to the uhmm “National” declared the idiot Kez the winner. The BBC in particular gloating about it. The National is clearly not to be trusted, telling porkies seems to a favourite pastime of that outlet as much as the BBC.

      When it comes to the next Indy Ref we are clearly on our own. We cant even trust the Courts either it seems.

    111. Dr Jim says:

      The newspapers making a great big deal of three women MSPs criticising Nicola Nicola Sturgeon over gender trans issues
      Perhaps the newspapers might make the point if it hadn’t been for Nicola Sturgeon and leaders like her they wouldn’t even be allowed to voice those issues at all in many countries

      You can’t make everybody happy in the one day, sometimes it takes two or three

    112. iainmore says:

      I am having a drink today to celebrate the fact that Idiocy is now a legitimate defence in law. I suppose I will only get away with that one if I declare myself a knuckle dragging butchers apron waving Yoon.

    113. Dr Jim says:

      Aah! the Yoon defence

    114. Ghillie says:

      Cactus @ 12.34 pm

      The answer is always Yes =)

    115. CameronB Brodie says:

      defo
      Let’s not fall out about this but you’re not my boss. Got it.

    116. Robert Peffers says:

      Ladies, Gentlemen and Wingers, I give you:-

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYsIGYOs7p8

    117. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      I don’t think that extraordinary judgement has done Stu any harm at all, quite the opposite in fact. He is now known to many more people

      O/T
      I’ll have Jonathon Shafi on my Roundabout show online for few minutes on Argyll Independent Radio 7pm – 8pm (followed by my rock’n’roll show)

    118. CameronB Brodie says:

      defo
      I’m not trying to wind you up, but taking a look at legal theory has refreshed my memory of legal reasoning that I think relevant to the indy movement.

      INDETERMINACY, JUSTIFICATION AND TRUTH IN CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY
      ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2960&context=flr

    119. defo says:

      Got it Cameron mate. Totally.
      Fill yer boots,50 links on a thread is within sight.
      I’m out of here.

    120. Referendum1707 says:

      Robert Peffers

      Listened to the first few minutes of that found myself chuckling n chortling.

      “Send just £2 a month to the Dug trust….” lol.

    121. CameronB Brodie says:

      defo
      So what have you contribute to the thread?

    122. AlbertaScot says:

      I see that clown in the Record this am in doing his little goal cellie over Stu’s Deputy Dug court case called the Rev a “hate merchant” and accused him of “bullying.”

      Bring in the lawyers Stu. There’s more blood to be squeezed out of this stone.

    123. defo says:

      CBB
      Sympathy for the dear leader. Not much else really.
      When there’s nothing meaningful or ‘funny’ to add to a topic, i don’t bother.
      You seem to have the time, why not go back to the start, scroll through, and then come back to try to justify posting that amount of OTHER peoples opinion & work.
      We get it by now that you’re a clever guy, so why not occasionally give us the benefit of YOUR opinion pal.

      Time to get back to work for me

      ps I meant well when offering advice on rationing your offerings.
      Too much info becomes scroll past, rather than having a deek to see what might be informative.

    124. CameronB Brodie says:

      defo
      “You seem to have the time, why not go back to the start, scroll through, and then come back to try to justify posting that amount of OTHER peoples opinion & work.”

      That’s how the transfer of knowledge works and folk become edumicated.

      This is sort of what I was trained to do and I’m doing it to the best of my ability. Why are you knocking-back free legal guidance? That’s rarer than rocking-horse doo doo.

    125. Cactus says:

      Hey Ghillie, thanks again, ahm no having ah go at anyone or their respective faiths btw, rather, just trying to make people additionally aware that there are people who use these figures of speech sub-consciously on a frequent basis

      If people are at least aware of these figures of speech, then hopefully it won’t come as much of a shock to them when presented with it

      Have ye an excellent sunny evening 🙂

    126. CameronB Brodie says:

      Or to put it another way, I have a particular insight in to specialised science and law. I would not be acting ethically as a rational, moral, individual, if I were not to attempt to share this insight. I can’t change the world on my own but I’ve been shown how that might be achieved. So I’d hoped others might want to take a scientific approach to social emancipation. Time allowing, of course. 😉

    127. Dorothy Devine says:

      Cactus , you are correct and so is Stephen Fry!

      P.S How is the boat ??

    128. Cubby says:

      Liz g@1.20am

      Liz, I’ve told you before I am not chubby. LOL

    129. Cubby says:

      Mad Unionist @1.43am

      A post that proves you really are a mad unionist.

    130. dakk says:

      A law that allows a contortion and inconsistent cop out such as this decision is no law at all imo.

      If such a cop out is indeed allowed( and it should be relatively easy for lawyers to ascertain this) then it is merely the personal whim of the judge or any appellate panel which matters.(Dressed up in legal parlance of course.)

      If it is the law that is unsound then you are probably wasting time and money.

      Whatever you decide though. I’m in.

    131. Liz g says:

      Cubby @ 7.17
      Oops….
      So sorry CUBBY….. Spell check hates me,I know this and still didn’t check…. A thousand apologies :-)…
      It must have been the thought of that Gin that distracted me LOL..
      I’ll do my best to no let it happen again,but nae promises,as me and spell check really,really don’t get on 🙂

    132. Cactus says:

      Hey Dorothy ~

      Ah’ve (we’ve) no been up there yet to put it on, me an mah mate decided to shake and go halfers on it so we’ll have more to accessorise with. This would have been a cracking weekend for it too, hope yer doing groovy ma’am 🙂

      Cool, on to the next article…

    133. Ghillie says:

      Hey there Cactus @ 5.34 pm

      I don’t feel shocked by ‘these figures of speech’ but sad.

      The frequency , common usage, unthinking slips of the tongue, as with words we now consider racist or sexist that often, in the not too distant past, tripped off the tongue with little thought for the hurt those words caused, does not take away from the sadness it causes me.

      And hey, I am well capable of turning the air blue when riled. I fair enjoy a good swearey rant. Usually aimed at the BBC 🙂

    134. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Surely someone could make similar comments about the tweets and rely on the defence of fair comment again, even if they already know from the judgement that the standards for veritas won’t be met?”

      No, because the sheriff’s clear and explicit ruling that I’m not a homophobe means that nobody can say that they honestly think I am one any more. The fact that I’m not has now been formally legally established.

    135. John McLeod says:

      Dear Stuart – regarding the question of whether you should continue the lease case against Kezia Dugdale. I am one of your biggest supporters, and happy to go along with whatever you decide. But my own preference would be to move on. The case has already done enough to send a strong message to those in the public eye, to not mess with you. We are soon going to be engaged in an independence referendum. I’d much rather see your energies devoted toward another book, as well as other innovative ways of getting the message across. You are also our number 1 rebuttal unit, given the inadequacy (so far) of the party’s efforts in that area.

    136. John McLeod says:

      The legal case…!!!

    137. Dan says:

      No, because the sheriff’s clear and explicit ruling that I’m not a homophobe means that nobody can say that they honestly think I am one any more. The fact that I’m not has now been formally legally established But it’s also been formally legally established that someone may nonetheless rationally form that view. Why does the opinion of the judge encroach on that right to fair comment? He explicitly says it is a value judgement notwithstanding that it doesn’t meet judicial standards of veritas.



    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. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top