The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

What don’t we know?

Posted on July 07, 2015 by

We noticed this last night, and we checked this morning and it’s still there:


That’s going to come as news to the people going to court tomorrow.

[EDIT 12.30pm: the paragraph has now been removed, without acknowledgement.]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 07 07 15 11:17

    What don’t we know? | Speymouth

90 to “What don’t we know?”

  1. Donald MacKenzie says:

    That’s got be ‘attempting to pervert the course of justice’ or a ‘contempt of court’ at the very least!

  2. Betty Boop says:

    Does someone know something about a back door deal? Is this the way to avoid court costs? Decision before case heard? Hmmm…

  3. Betty Boop says:

    Do we need to be asking The Scotsman who leaked this information and who knew what and when? Groundhog Day.

  4. broonpot says:

    Typical of this rag.

    If they think of something and it suits the old establishment agenda then they just print it.

    If its not true they ignore everyone and repeat it often to make it seem true.

    If they are found to be totally wrong it becomes an unfortunate slip of the pen

    If they are proved to be stupid they don’t care because they are, and think everyone is as incapable as they are.

    PS – They always seem popular with conspiracy theorists for some reason

  5. Fiona says:

    Actions brought by “little people” are not actions at all, to this mindset?

  6. Bill Fraser says:

    It was obvious he would receive backing from M.P.s but will this be enough to save him?.Thursday may decide.

  7. Bill Steele says:

    Who decided that Carmichael would not face a legal challenge?

  8. Brian Powell says:

    Ah, it was in the ProudScotsman. Interesting to note they are still trying, scrabbling, to make LibDems/Carmichael seem relevant.

  9. heedtracker says:

    Looks awfully like another honest Andy Coulson acquittal. Switch Coulson for Carmicheal, saves time.

    “Delivering his ruling, he said he had “sustained the arguments in favour of the accused” and told Coulson: “I acquit you of the charge.”

    “Thank you,” said Coulson calmly before walking out of court three. Speaking outside the court, Coulson insisted that he had never lied and the prosecution had been unwarranted.

    “This prosecution was always wrong,” he said. “I didn’t lie and the prosecution, in my view, was a gross waste of public money. I’m just delighted after yada yada … my family have had a good day.”

    Vote LibDem.

  10. Luigi says:

    I see that honest Michael Carmichael is trying hard, angling for a leading role in this pathetic “Scottish Play”. The role of good cop? It seems like a deliberate attempt to rehabilitate the buffoon in the eyes of the public: “See he is not so bad after all, he is standing up for Scotland!”. Aye, right! I’m not sure if this is his own initiative (unlikely) or people have “helped him” with these ideas, speeches etc – now who would benefit from this, I wonder? A risky adventure, IMO, with the big bear lingering around Westminster like a bad smell, it is probably not the best idea to stand up and shout “Look at me, I’m still here, and I’m relevant!”. A smarter person in his predicament would sit down quietly, keep the head down and hope no-one notices him. I guess that is not his style.

  11. Brian Powell says:

    Not only in the ProudScotsman, but written by David Maddox. A double LOLs worth!

  12. X_Sticks says:

    I’ve noticed he has been getting an inordinate amount of airtime. Presumably to convince us all what a good and experienced MP he is.

    I remain unconvinced. I still think he is a buffoon who would sink without a trace were it not for his fiefdom in Orkney.

    I suspect the establishment will protect him. They will be worried that he might spill the beans over Mundell and probably Cameron’s involvement in #frenchgate.

  13. Bill Fraser says:

    Will there still be a court hearing on Thursday?

  14. Frann Leach says:

    As that post from the Orkney Vole was posted on 30 June, it must mean this Thursday just gone surely?

  15. Capella says:

    It could mean, as in the Andy Coulson case, that the Court has decided there is no case to answer and this has been leaked to the Scotsman.

    Or it could mean that the Recall Bill, though passed, hasn’t yet been registered as a Bill (or whatever they do) and so can’t be used to challenge him legally.

    We should find out tomorrow.

  16. Socrates MacSporran says:

    WHOA!!! Haud oan there, don’t get your knickers in a twist. I may be wrong, but, I think there is a simple explanation to this.

    David Maddox, who wrote The Scotsman article, is a member of The Scotsman Group’s political staff. I believe he is London-based and I am assuming, he has heard around Westminster that there will be no action by Westminster, as regards punishing Carmichael for lying.

    I doubt very much that he has been tipped the wink within Parliament House in Edinburgh that the case against Carmichael will be tossed-out on Thursday.

    In any case, that might be contempt of court, to break any “no case to answer” decision.

    More likely this has been a cock-up by the sub-editors. The Scotsman has shed an awful lot of production jobs of late and the guys who are there are under enormous pressure. They are also, it should be said in his defence, asking more and more of the troops at the sharp end, such as David Maddox – which means, shit happens.

    The wording of the original Maddox piece is slip-shod, in the good old days, it would have been flung back at him with instructions to “rewrite this – in English”, but, today, such poorly-written articles, all-too-often, get through.

  17. fudgefase says:

    Why are we surprised? It’s all a monumental fix.

  18. chris kilby says:

    Wait. What…!?!

  19. Alastair says:

    “he would not face a legal challenge”

    Unless The People v Carmichael have withdrawn from the case this is not true.

    At the court last week it was agreed that this case has to be put to the Electoral Court in front of two judges. They would deal with the points of Law in a pre-trial. They adjourned last week to allow time to arrange the logistics – court, judges and legal teams availability.

    I am sure someone from Orkney will clarify.

  20. Dan Huil says:

    I’d never have seen this without WOS. No wonder more and more people are visiting the Rev’s website.

  21. chris kilby says:

    As usual, the LibDems haven’t thought this through. Carmichael won’t look so smug next year when Tavish Scott and Liam McArthur lose their Holyrood seats because of him. He’ll be as popular as Jim Murphy. And as safe. The voters never forgot about tuition fees. Does Carmichael seriously think the voters of Orkney and Shetland will ever forget this…?

  22. galamcennalath says:

    Typical pro-Union output – you can never quite work out if it is mistake, misinterpretation, misunderstanding, misrepresentation, misinformation, or mischief … or any combination thereoff.

  23. Alastair says:


    Unless the time has been changed Lady Paton announced in court 9.30am.

    Just incase anyone is going along. The public gallery will be open.

  24. Camz says:

    It’s gone now…

  25. Andrew Fernie says:

    I notice the paragraph has now disappeared from the Scotsman article.

  26. Mealer says:

    I presume this is a careless use of language rather than careless use of information about an abuse of our legal system.If it’s the former it shows the Scotsman has lost its grip.If it’s the latter it shows the establishment is losing its grip.

  27. Wayne says:

    I assume this was just an error, but they need to fix it as it is blatantly not true. In any event a hearing is indeed scheduled before Lady Paton for 9.30am tomorrow morning.

    Scroll down through the list until you find it. The court rolls are updatwd daily.

  28. Luigi says:

    Is this the legal process, union style? The establishment first decides what the the outcome will be, before the hearing (the priority being to cover certain big arses), and then leaks it to their dumb MSM mouthpieces, who invariably let the cat out of the bag too early. 🙂

  29. Jim Mitchell says:

    Interesting, to say the least!

  30. Wouldn’t be the first time the establishment has told the judiciary what to do.
    In the Lockerbie bombing case, several editors were tipped off on the verdict before it was announced in court. Same in the Ernest Saunders case, where the media published articles about his mental state before the hearing decided he was to be released early from prison because of ‘dementia’. This allows time for positive spins to be developed for our consumption.

    Carmichael could bring down Mundell ( Colonial Commander in Chief ) if he were to be forced to go, so the deal is he gets to stay if he promises to stand down in 2020. Otherwise he’d be toast.

    The establishment are not going to let a few folks in Orkney win, especially if they’re funded by a horde of peasants, chipping in.

    My guess is few establishment figures have decided he won’t lose any legal charges, instructed the judiciary and briefed key media figures.

    One of them ( Maddox ) has simply fucked up by going on it too early. He’ll now say ( if he says anything ) he wrote it on a presumption.

    We voted, last September, to stay in a nasty,corrupt, right wing Union and this is what happens in nasty, corrupt, right wing states.

  31. Wulls says:

    hope you got a copy of the full page…’s gone now.

  32. Petra says:

    I can’t see the next hearing not going ahead. If so we would have heard from ‘The People’ of O&S as they would be aware of this before some journalist on a newspaper.

    However as we all know the proceedings may be halted at some point along the way, such as Coultarts, to ensure that no evidence is submitted (such as proof that Cameron, Clegg, Mundell and Cameron were ALL involved in this).

  33. Ken500 says:

    What you expect from Maddox and the Scotsman not the smartest cookie’ on the block. Par for the course, manipulating themselves out of a job. Lying Hypocrisy.

    Their lose is Rev Stu gain. Thanks a Billion.


  34. Luigi says:

    chris kilby says:

    7 July, 2015 at 10:31 am

    Does Carmichael seriously think the voters of Orkney and Shetland will ever forget this…?

    I think he is just hanging on for his last five years at the trough (not an insubstantial amount of money), and in the meantime looking around for future employment. Possibly, he may be angling for a lordship etc, as a reward from his Tory masters for keeping stum about their involvement in the disasterous Frenchgate affair.

  35. Grouse Beater says:

    When Iain Macwhirter criticised BBC Scotland for its shoestring budget, that has (and still has) small talk news presented out of a broom cupboard, lit by candles, the BBC promptly marked him persona non grata.

    When Carmichael knowingly, slyly, and unethically defames a nation’s elected leader BBC Scotland promptly elevates him to celebrity politician for inclusion in all items germane to Scotland.

  36. Robert Bryce says:

    Wouldn’t surprise me if the decision has already been made before the hearing. There are other examples of this on the internet if you Google it.
    Things like court orders signed before hearings actually take place.

  37. Jim Thomson says:

    @Camz & @Andrew Fernie – gone … but not forgotten

    That, as has been said many, many times, is why we all stick to WoS as a source of archived evidence.

    I vote Freedom of Scotland for Stuart 🙂

  38. heedtracker says:

    He’s going to get away with it make no mistake. UKOK power flexing it’s muscle in any way it likes. EVEL makes any Scottish MP second class in Westminster. Smith Commission’s delivered nothing but tax hike power, SLabour councils want devo-max by-passing Holyrood and straight to them.

    No matter what we vote from now to the end of teamGB, Scotland’s been utterly diminished to a 2nd class region in the UK and all since 18 Sept 2014. Its infinitely worse than 1979 because it has to be if UKOK unionists want to keep total control of their Scotland region.

    They have the power to do anything they like now. This lying slob knows it, the unionist hack up there knows it, everyone knows it. The only way out is ref 2.

    Need to know more? Ask this dude. He helped cook up THE VOW fraud with the sole purpose that it does nothing but harm Holyrood, because he’s a tory boy from Kent. It’s what he does.

  39. Les Wilson says:

    I would like to think the Judge would be handed a copy of this article, before the court case. She should be appalled.

    It will depend on how she views Scots law, or not, if she is a Unionist Judge, maneuvered by Westminster.

  40. Macart says:

    I’d trust them about as far as I could chuck Carmichael.

    Here’s hoping this is merely editorial incompetence.

  41. Legerwood says:

    Is there some reason why the SNP cohort in the Commons did not think to raise a section 24 motion to get this debate on EVEL?

    I am sure there must be people within the 56 who know enough about Parliament and how it works to have considered this. If so why did they not take it forward?

    Why allow a disgraced MP the opportunity to try to rehabilitate himself?

    If the court case is dismissed on Thursday then I have no doubt that the LibDems and others will be making these very points as they resdume their attacks on the SNP and in particular its MPs.

  42. Itchybiscuit says:

    IMO we (independence supporters) will be subjected to a barrage of these ‘slips of the pen’. I genuinely believe it’s the first of many wind-ups. Perhaps spite and bile are all the so-called ‘newspapers’ have left to offer the people of Scotland?

  43. ahundredthidiot says:

    Kind of on topic……Danny Alexander on Daily Politics right now…….talking……politics.

    Never underestimate the power of denial

  44. manandboy says:

    It’s not easy becoming a fully savvy citizen of North Korea and the same goes for the new UK. We are still living in the belief that the Courts here will deliver a true and just verdict. Do we believe that of North Korea? We must catch up with the new reality of Tory Rule in the UK – then use our energies to combat it rather than waste it on what ‘should’ be and end up frustrated. Every law in the UK is now subject to the overarching principle of what suits the Tories.

  45. Alan says:

    Someone has noticed, the article has been edited to remove the original quote.

  46. ronnie anderson says:

    Carmichael case . the By Order of the Court was Thursday of last week ( Lady Paton) Tim & Fiona are waiting on a Court date for the start of the Trial.

  47. Petra says:

    Amendment of my post at 10:53 am … Should read ‘Coulson’ not ‘Coultart’, lol.

  48. Luigi says:

    Alan says:

    7 July, 2015 at 11:55 am

    Someone has noticed, the article has been edited to remove the original quote.

    Too late, the cat is out of the bag. We will find out soon enough.

  49. Grouse Beater says:

    Someone has noticed, the article has been edited to remove the original quote.

    Winston Smith back from lunch?

  50. Grouse Beater says:

    Danny Alexander ex-Lib-Dem Treasury lackey and MP, now guest on BBC’s Daily Politics waffling his way through even the most innocuous of questions.

    He has a yes-no-I’m-neutral-kinda-maybe-worth-a-try for every question asked, as in this example asked if he will be a Lib-Dem candidate again:

    “I might stand again, maybe-worth-a-thought-but-happy-with-family-might-happen-who-knows? …

    A total waste of time and licence payer fees. A non-person masquerading as a political figure of no substance.

  51. ronnie anderson says:

    Ignore my last post at 12.02.

    Court Rolls are sheduled for 8th July at 9,30am, (but these shedules are subject to change)at short notice.

  52. Valerie says:

    Omg, we wouldn’t have seen this, if not on WoS!

    I feel a bit sick thinking this could be a stitch up, it must be hard to be that incompetent in your written word, ffs????

    I’m not given to conspiracy, but am also aware of just how much of the judiciary is stage managed.

    This don’t look good 🙁

  53. orri says:

    Let’s not forget that it might be argued that in authorising revealing the details of a document concerning a foreign power Charmichael may have broken the Official Secrets Act. Given he was still a member of the government at the time, even if he forgot, he also abused his position for political gain. Perhaps that’s the legal action it’s been decided he shouldn’t face?

  54. Anagach says:

    Grouse Beater says:
    7 July, 2015 at 11:04 am
    When Iain Macwhirter criticised BBC Scotland

    The BBC are sensitive about it. As far as I can see from the accounts the BBC collects some £340m from Scotland, and earns some £70m more (8.7% of income) but spends very little in Scotland, varying between £100m and £140m depending on which budget publication you read and how radio is accounted, and how money ‘spent on behalf of Scotland’ but not actually in Scotland is handled.

    At a time when there are moves to open a film studio and support the business in Scotland the BBC is very quiet on its lack of support for the media and film business in Scotland, and its drain of the money to inside the M25.


  55. orri says:

    Actually perhaps the deleted phrase is a positive rather than negative thing given any of the other parties in that election might have considered doing so. The fact that it went ahead any way allows them to keep their hands clean and reduces any accusation of political bias.

  56. BenInsular says:

    @Socrates MacSporran

    “More likely this has been a cock-up by the sub-editors.”

    I’m of the same mind. The original, now deleted, paragraph didn’t really fit in with the rest of the piece anyway, and read like editorializing wedged clumsily into what passes for “straight reportage” in the Scotsman.

    Indeed, its insertion read as clumsily as the tail end of that so-called “caveated report” touted by the Telegraph about what the French Ambassador and Nicola Sturgeon allegedly discussed.

  57. Scott Borthwick says:

    Carmichael’s legal team were trying to get the action dismissed through legal technicalities. I believe that’s where were were when the case adjourned on Thursday last.

    From the BBC website, 2 July: “Roddy Dunlop QC, for the MP, told a judge on Thursday that he proposed advancing arguments on legal issues that if successful would lead to “effective dismissal” of the action.”

    As far as I’m aware, those arguments have not been put to the court. The last thing Carmichael and his team want is for this to run its course in the courts and for witnesses to be called.

  58. Dave the Squirrel says:

    “Rehabilitation”? For being a lying, smearing bastard? Overprivileged c**t.

    I can’t wish death on another person, but I do hope he trips and bangs his knee really, really hard on the corner of an escalator step and it hurts for at least four hours.

  59. Big Jock says:

    When I thought he was nearer 60 than the 49 he claims to be. I thought he might have walked away into retirement. It seems the bloated podger is hanging on like Murphy. As he would not know what to do for the next 15 years.

    Perhaps some excercise a diet and a face lift. Then he might get a job in Matalan.

  60. Robert Peffers says:

    @Petra says: 7 July, 2015 at 12:10 pm:

    “Amendment of my post at 10:53 am … Should read ‘Coulson’ not ‘Coultart’, lol.”

    I’d say, Petra, that it’s, (ahem!), a racing certainty that most here had gathered that.

  61. Sunnivw says:

    It all smells of a fix. Somebody at Westminster has attempted to throw Carmichael a lifeline (rehabilitation?) in return for his noble efforts to derail the SNP before the GE. Somebody has his back.

    We’re not fooled.

    Well spotted.

  62. arthur thomson says:

    Putting the Carmichael issue to legal test is important to me, not least to observe how the Judiciary respond.

    If Carmichael is allowed to avoid the issue for rational legal reason then I will accept that fact but be made aware that the law is inadequate. In these circumstances Carmichael will not be exonerated, he will simply avoid justice being done.

    If ultimately it is apparent to me that justice is not done and/or seen to be done because of a corrupt judiciary then I will know what to expect of the judiciary in other matters. Best to know where I stand. In this situation Carmichael will not be exonerated.

    If the law cannot or will not deliver justice in this matter then the small contribution I made to the crowd fund will be well worthwhile just to clarify the situation.

    In any event, Carmichael has admitted what he did and that what he did was wrong. All honest people know this and despise him for what he did and the fact that he has sought to evade justice and in all probability to enable others to do so.

    Those who support Carmichael and others in trying to evade justice are simply dishonest. All actions on their part in the future will be viewed in that light. I wouldn’t want to be one of them. Any decent Libdems out there know what they should do if Carmichael is allowed to get away with what he did. All those who continue to support Carmichael should be aware that they are supporting corruption and that they are undermining democracy.

  63. orri says:

    I wonder if Carmichael can get a refund for his legal representation? In attempting to have the case dropped due to technicalities they’ve as much as admitted he’s guilty of something other than the specific thing he’s being pursued for.

    The accuracy of the memo is not actually important when it comes to whether he had a legitimate reason to leak it’s contents or not. It was clearly marked for limited distribution which should settle the question of it’s confidentiality. He’s admitted he authorised it’s release whilst disclaiming any knowledge of it’s actual contents. A bizarre thing to do given by it’s very nature it might be considered subject to the Official Secrets Act. Also pointless because in authorising it’s release he became equally as guilty.

    Not only that but if the technicality is that he didn’t actually directly impute the reputation of his political opponent in the seat he was contesting he was still responsible for the actions of his proxy. He is on record as hinting at a public interest defence in providing what he believed to be evidence of dishonesty on the part of the leader of the SNP. A defense that if this were actually about his revealing a confidential government document that prompted the foreign power involved to intervene and thus damaged the UK’s reputation would be inadmissible.

    Even should the case be made that he did not actually missrepresent his fellow candidate at the election the fact remains that he did missrepresent himself by obfusticating his direct involvement in the releasing of said memo.

    It might also be argued that if the original is being exempted from a FOI request then by inference it must be considered of such a nature as to be exempt as in an Official Secret. That not all breeches of that act aren’t pursued due to national interest was highlighted in the case of the Trident whistleblower. So Carmichael not being taken to task isn’t really a surprise. However it might also be worth noting that FOI requests are one of the suggested avenues to get information of that nature into the public domain in a legal manner.

  64. Albaman says:

    Aye, it was “Fluffy” Mundell wot leaked it to the Scotsman .

  65. Grouse Beater says:

    Anagach: At a time when there are moves to open a film studio and support the business in Scotland the BBC is very quiet on its lack of support for the media and film business in Scotland, and its drain of the money to inside the M25.

    Will publish in hours essay that includes reference to that.

  66. orri says:

    The strange thing is that the BBC had a relatively recent documentary about historical dramas set in and about Scotland. A lot of them set around the highlands no less and at the time of the ’45. It’s almost as though it was filmed to be shown prior to a modern one of the same ilk which never transpired and at a later date they ran out of things to show and didn’t bother editing it enough before airing it.

    I mention it because whilst watching a certain series of that description that mysteriously never made it to our screens I let it run to the end of the credits and saw bold as brass that it’d been cast by the BBC.

  67. wullie says:

    Where stands Scots law. With the people of Scotland or the westminster establishment, oh deary deary me why even ask. Such a stupid stupid question.

  68. Rock says:

    Did I not tell you in advance?

    “Given that the Scottish justice system is rotten to the core and the vast majority of lawyers, especially judges, are the lowest of the low, Carmichael will almost certainly win the case.

    That will be 60,000 pounds of independence supporters’ cash down the lawyers’ drain, while people in Scotland are starving.

    But even if my prediction comes true, we will have no choice but to continue playing the game according to the unionists’ rules.”

  69. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi Rock.

    Your predictions are not solid gold – I wouldn’t bet on them.

    Do you recall when you typed,

    Who would be better placed to unseat Ian Davidson in Glasgow – Tommy Sheridan or an SNP candidate?”

    “Paula Rose,
    “as the constituencies are presently configured (for the UK GE) I see none of them where anyone other than the SNP has a chance.”

    So you think an SNP candidate has a better chance than Tommy Sheridan of unseating Ian Davidson in Glasgow?”

    OK, you didn’t actually make a prediction but you did discount the SNP taking Davidson’s seat – FAIL!

    You’ll be aware of Chris Stevens, The SNP MP who took Ian Davidson’s Glasgow South West seat from him? That’s an SNP MP who didn’t have as good a chance as Tommy Sheridan of taking the seat…

  70. Paula Rose says:

    @ Brian Doonthetoon – put the wee Rock down dear, we’ve always welcomed diversity on this site and I think we will have to do so again. Perhaps we can all agree that pedant is a term of endearment, and recognition that some of us were failed by the education system.

    Folk who should be grateful that the lies, obfuscations and trickery of the UK establishment are being exposed, explained and debunked by Robert Peffers and others.

    A sycophant is one who uses flattery to win favour from people with power or influence – so I think we can all agree that its use to describe anyone here is risible.

  71. orri says:

    Given the 60,000 is the possible cost of actually going through with the case in court then only a fraction of it will be used if the decision is he has no case to answer under that particular legislation. As I said previously if his legal team are going to avoid having to answer for his actions due to technicalities then it’s might be spun as an uncertainty that he’d win. Nor do I see any way his lawyers could lay claim to it.

  72. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Oh Paula Rose – consider me duly stroked.

    How could I be so insensitive? As Rory Bremner quoted that Swedish guy who managed the Englandshire footie team for a wee while, “He iss yong, he iss lorning…”

    BTW: still working on the “Proud Pedant” badge…

  73. David McDowell says:

    Carmichaels’ defence is that he has two totally separate characters (like Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde) and he’s arguing: “it was Mr Hyde wot done it, m’Lady”.

    Therefore I expect the judge to rule as follows: “Mr Carmichael’s ‘mistatement’ about his lack of awareness of the memo affected only his ‘public character’ (Mr Hyde).
    “Electoral law in this case applies only to false statements that affect ‘personal character’ (Dr. Jekyll). There is no case to answer.”

    After all, we all have a “public character” with different ethical rules that don’t apply to us personally, right?

    “Yes, I told a lie but it doesn’t count because I was only doing my job at the time.”

    Good luck selling that one to your boss at a disciplinary hearing!

  74. Rock says:

    Brian Doonthetoon,

    “Hi Rock.

    Your predictions are not solid gold – I wouldn’t bet on them.

    Do you recall when you typed,

    Who would be better placed to unseat Ian Davidson in Glasgow – Tommy Sheridan or an SNP candidate?”

    “Paula Rose,
    “as the constituencies are presently configured (for the UK GE) I see none of them where anyone other than the SNP has a chance.”

    So you think an SNP candidate has a better chance than Tommy Sheridan of unseating Ian Davidson in Glasgow?”

    First, those comments were opinions, not predictions.

    Lockerbie and Carmichael were predictions because both of them depend on Scottish justice, which even Morag agreed was rotten to the core, and my firm view is that the vast majority of lawyers, especially judges, are the lowest of the low.

    If all my predictions came true, I would be making a living out of it. Well, I would be winning every lottery, so no need to make a living.

    Second, Davidson and Bain with their massive majorities in “socialist” Glasgow were considered unbeatable then. Even the SNP would not have thought then that they could unseat them.

    Given Tommy Sheridan’s SNP neutral independence campaign and his endorsement of the SNP for the 2015 Westminster election, I thought he would have a better chance of unseating Davidson and had no problem for the SNP to stand aside in his favour.

    Since you have been looking at old posts of mine, you will have noticed that I was in favour of a “Yes Alliance” then, which I am not anymore because the Greens, the Socialists and Alan Grogan’s Labour for independence all made an anti-SNP stand in 2015.

    If you want to challenge my Carmichael prediction, why don’t you give your own view?

    And anything to say about my Lockerbie prediction being “solid gold”?

  75. Rock says:

    Paula Rose,

    “Folk who should be grateful that the lies, obfuscations and trickery of the UK establishment are being exposed, explained and debunked by Robert Peffers and others.”

    What about Robert Peffers’ endless pedantry about the people of Scotland being “sovereign”?

    Where the hell is that “sovereignty” if 71% of the people want Carmichael to resign but he refuses to do so, soon to be backed by a Scottish judge?

    Robert Peffers shuts up or waffles when his pedantry is challenged. He never accepts that he is wrong.

    And he has never apologised for an openly racist comment he once made.

  76. Rock says:

    Paula Rose,

    “A sycophant is one who uses flattery to win favour from people”

    Like a poster here who addresses others as “Honey” and “dear” to win their favour.

    You have won over Brian Doonthetoon completely so your efforts have not been completely wasted.

    I notice that neither you nor Brian Doonthetoon have made any point about Scotland on this article that can be argued or discussed.

    It seems your aim is to lower the quality of debate on every single thread.

    Whether you agree with them or not, I make points about Scottish independence and challenge those of others without resorting to pedantry and sycophancy.

  77. Paula Rose says:

    @ Rock It was not openly rascist – the context could have been better explained.

    This site is not exclusively the preserve of SNP supporters – I’m sure you can work that out. Do you really think that following such a line helps Scotland?

    Your misunderstanding of Robert Peffer is getting embarrassing – could you take some time to reflect – or are you trying to sow discord? I sincerely hope not.

  78. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi Rock.

    When you are selectively requoting, you must remember that our comments are up above for everyone to read.

    So you typed,
    “First, those comments were opinions, not predictions.”

    You either didn’t read, or ignored, what I had typed above, prior to your post, which was,
    “OK, you didn’t actually make a prediction but you did discount the SNP taking Davidson’s seat – FAIL!”

    See? You’re actually agreeing with me! Och you’re just a wee sycophant, iye? I’m still not bearing your children though, no matter how much you butter me up.

  79. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Oh, and re your constant disparaging of Robert Peffers…

    It is FACT that, almost uniquely in the civilised world, in Scotland the people are sovereign. This was claimed in the Declaration of Arbroath and confirmed by The Pope at the time. (The equivalent of today’s United Nations.)

    Perchance, you should have a wee read of this:-

  80. Paula Rose says:

    @ Brian Doonthetoonie my dear pal – let us call a truce, let us accept that many new commenters do not “get” all the references. Let us agree one and all to be pals and from this moment forth to declare that we are sovereign.

  81. James says:

    Could be a case of accidental honesty. They know what the result will be already.

  82. Fred says:

    My neighbour Big Isa thinks that Mundell is effete, I had to raise ane eyebrow at this, her latest pronouncement, as I don’t think he’s anything like as butch as that. 🙂

  83. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    LOL Fred!


  84. Rock says:

    Paula Rose,

    “This site is not exclusively the preserve of SNP supporters – I’m sure you can work that out. Do you really think that following such a line helps Scotland?”

    When did I say it was?

    As usual, when you have lost the argument and your sycophancy and patronising has failed, you make false accusations. You forgot to use the “troll” word there.

  85. Rock says:

    Brian Doonthetoon,

    “You either didn’t read, or ignored, what I had typed above, prior to your post, which was,
    “OK, you didn’t actually make a prediction but you did discount the SNP taking Davidson’s seat – FAIL!””

    I forgot you write in the style of the Hootsman, where the blazing headline is proved wrong at the bottom of the article:

    “Hi Rock.

    Your predictions are not solid gold – I wouldn’t bet on them.

    Do you recall when you typed,


    If you knew, why were you comparing predictions with opinions in the first place?

    Did you not have anything better to contribute?

  86. Rock says:

    Paula Rose,

    “Your misunderstanding of Robert Peffer is getting embarrassing –”

    Brian Doonthetoon,

    “Oh, and re your constant disparaging of Robert Peffers…”

    Robert Peffers is never short of words. He would never use 10 if a 1000 could do. So let him answer for himself.

    As for the “sovereign” pedantry, if we are sovereign and 71% of us want Carmichael to do so, why can’t we make him do so without a judge?

    Or is the unelected judge “sovereign” rather the people?

    Whatever the words used, we plebs are most certainly not sovereign.

    We are powerless and that is why even after 300 years we are not independent.

  87. Paula Rose says:

    @ 9:28pm did not read 12:22am – pity.

  88. Rock says:

    Paula Rose,

    “@ 9:28pm did not read 12:22am – pity.”

    You can’t say false things and then expect them to go unanswered.

    When did I say this site was exclusively the preserve of SNP supporters as you alleged?

    When did I ask for references from anyone?

    You can challenge any comments I make, in a constructive way.

    We can certainly disagree on opinions, but I will not be talked down or silenced by your patronising and false accusations.

  89. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi Rock.

    You enquired,

    “Did you not have anything better to contribute?

    No, I couldn’t be @®$e?.

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