Not Content with Constant Anti-Scottish Output, the BBC is Extending its Reach to Anti-Scottish Censorship. 177


The BBC’s success in taking down Wings Over Scotland’s YouTube channel – and Youtube’s complacent compliance with the BBC instruction – has a very dodgy foundation in law. Excerpts of copyright material may be published for purposes of “criticism, review or quotation” provided the source is acknowledged. As Wings would only use BBC material for review and criticism – they are hardly repeating it as great news reporting – the BBC’s copyright infringement claim is at best very dubious.

More to the point, this despicable infringement on freedom of speech is appalling behaviour for a state broadcaster. Removal of criticism is the BBC’s only purpose here. The BBC is not protecting a state asset – the old news clips in question have zero commercial value; Wings was not republishing episodes of Dr Who.

Not content with constant anti-Scottish output, the BBC is extending its reach to anti-Scottish censorship.

If you have not yet seen it, I do urge you to watch this eye-opening, indeed breathtaking, documentary on the BBC’s fake news output in the Scottish referendum campaign. The strange colour toning in the BBC excerpts were in fact an additional defence against a copyright claim. Watch it now in case the BBC and YouTube take this one down too.


177 thoughts on “Not Content with Constant Anti-Scottish Output, the BBC is Extending its Reach to Anti-Scottish Censorship.

1 2 3
    • Tom

      Cloudflare can be oversensitive if it doesn’t trust your IP address… On the other hand it’s possible to adjust these settings if it falsely flags legitimate origins.

    • Darth

      It looks like you are using a VPN or private server and IP addresses close to yours have generated spam previously at other sites – which is likely why Cloudflare did further checking. If it is causing you any problems we can adjust some settings to whitelist the IP range.

  • Tom

    Seeking to influence debates with propaganda is one thing, stamping down on legitimate speech is indefensible and counterproductive to the message this English corporation exists to promote.

  • J

    Thanks for the alert. I have seen the film and did recommended it to Scottish friends who hadn’t. Even more disturbing and shocking is the catalogue of intimidation described in the article.

  • MJ

    This is just a small example of what is currently happening to many “alternative” sites. There are ways round it: NaturalNews for example is setting up its own video channel.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    A lot of these people are traitors, and should be in jail. We happen to know 3 people who work in the Prison Service. One of these Officers has been back to our home for at least one party with his girlfriend…He couldn’t believe it – there is the food there is the booze – help yourself – smoking is not allowed in the house – but you can go outside. The other Officer’s well we have been to their parties.

    All I can say on the basis of 3, is that our Prison Officers, are really nice people. They never say anything in detail about their jobs ( a bit like being a catholic priest) and I am sure ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR will enjoy being with them for the rest of his life.

    Tony

  • Charles Bostock

    I will put this latest post by Craig into the “bad loser” drawer.

  • Sharp Ears

    I was just trying to comment about this on the previous thread saying that Google (You Tube) follow instructions from the state broadcaster, aka the British Broadcasting Corporation’ – ‘Nation shall speak peace unto nation’ cr*p said to be an adaptation from the Book of Micah’s “nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”.

    Then my internet connection failed which is a rare occurrence so I was beginning to feel a bit jumpy.

    Pleased to read Craig’s comments.

    • Sharp Ears

      We also had this cr*p from them just before Christmas.

      Learn how the BBC is working to strengthen trust and transparency in online news
      8 December 2017

      The BBC is recognised by audiences in the UK and around the world as a provider of news that you can trust. Our website, like our TV and radio services, strives for journalism that is accurate, impartial, independent and fair.

      Our editorial values say: “The trust that our audience has in all our content underpins everything that we do. We are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly or materially misleading our audiences.
      /..
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342

      It’s one of those pages that is never ending – worthy of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson’s Jabberwocky.

      [..]
      ‘And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
      Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
      Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’
      He chortled in his joy.

      ‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
      All mimsy were the borogoves,
      And the mome raths outgrabe.’

    • Charles Bostock

      Worry not, the secret police aren’t going to come knocking on your door. You’re in the UK.

  • Anon1

    You’ve done this routine so many times it’s getting almost as tiresome as that picture of Sirte you keep posting.

    So once again, if you want to break up the British state you have to expect that the British state will seek to prevent that happening. It should hardly come as a surprise that the state broadcaster will be a part of that effort. You were given a free and fair referendum at a very favourable point in time but that was all you were ever going to get.

    Any people who truly want their independence are going to get it come what may. They are not going to be put off by a bit of media scaremongering. Look at what we had to put up with during Project Fear, EURef edition. Ultimately, though, our thirst for independence was so great that we weren’t going to be swayed by the likes of the BBC.

    The sad truth is that the Scottish are a people who simply do not want their independence. It was a pathetic spectacle watching the only people in history to have rejected their independence but there you have it.

      • Charles Bostock

        Maybe, but as usual Anon1 makes some excellent points. More generally, this blog appears to be morphing into a blog specialising in criticising the MSM. In other words, developing into a media-focussed blog. Is that a fruitful avenue to go down, I wonder.

        • bj

          Anon1’s comment was silly, but very revealing and unintentionally supportive of Craig’s point.

          He, Anon1, thinks the [British] state is something of itself, that defends itself when it perceives danger.

          In a true democracy, the state is the people.

          QED.

          • Charles Bostock

            bj

            I think you’re trying – for once – to answer someone else seriously, as opposed to your usual flip five-worders. The problem is that you’re not doing it very well.

          • bj

            Most of the idiocy here can be dismissed by just a handful of words, as you have apparently experienced yourself.

        • fwl

          MSM / media is not a narrow topic.

          Not only is so called “war on fake news” ramping up into an outright justification for censorship but the $ and co can see what is happening hence (maybe – I’m not discounting other factors) massive and rapid devaluations of FB and Twitter last week.

      • Charles Bostock

        But of course it’s Craig’s blog, he can do with rt what he wills.

    • Republicofscotland

      “Any people who truly want their independence are going to get it come what may. They are not going to be put off by a bit of media scaremongering. ”

      You don’t quite realise the power of media propaganda yet do you? If yes wins after we know how terrible Brexit will be (and it will be an almighty clusterf#ck) we will be defeating the greatest propaganda machine in history.

    • Andyoldlabour

      @Laszlo, she was totally shown up by the Hungarian guy, who was trying to explain how she was not actually quoting laws. The BBC has a heavily pro EU, pro open borders, pro unlimited immigration.
      How many of these migrants/refugees have replaced the “usual” suspects – BBC reporters/journalists/presenters?

      • Charles Bostock

        An interesting question would be the following : would the Hungarian government maintain its “Hungary for the Hungarians” rhetoric (for that is the essence of what the FM said in that interview) if there were large-scale immigration from another EU country (or several EU countries)?

        Of course, on paper, there’s nothing Hungary could do if many Romanians, Bulgarians, etc suddenly decided to go to Hungary (there is the EU right of free movement), which is why I have used the expression “rhetoric”.

        • Andyoldlabour

          Charles, I have no doubt that the Hungarians would stop large scale immigration from any country, regardless of whether it is inside the EU or not.
          There are other EU states which would and do take the same stance – Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania etc.
          How strange that these states are the same ones benefitting the most from UK contributions, made to ensure that they toe the EU line.

  • Contrary

    There is also the point that anti-independence YouTube sites were NOT targeted.

    Thank you for posting the London Calling video Craig, I watched it again recently, it is good the remind ourselves, and it still has an impact even when you know there is so little honesty behind BBC Scotland reporting.

    Can I also say thank you to the commenters here that posted links to the Bill Browder story (book and documentary), it has been very enlightening and puts many things into context. Not least about the impact of suppression of views and news where they do not agree with the official narrative. The wider context does not take away anything from the fact that Scottish independence support is targeted (in a small way from a global perspective), but makes it more important that the MSM are continually exposed for their misinformation and outright lies. It shows that the ‘fake news’ storm is just a farce by those peddling the official narrative, we can each make reasoned decision on whose news to believe or not believe, if we are given their background reasons for giving that news, I do not think state control of any alternative viewpoints is right or useful.

    I am not sure it can be proved at this stage it was the BBC in the case of WoS? but it seems likely.

    • jake

      The WOS site is not the only pro-indy site to be targeted in this way over the last couple of days.

    • Contrary

      Yes, quite. Turns out that it was definitely the BBC that asked for clips to be removed, but blames YouTube for the wholesale termination of an account.

  • quasi_verbatim

    Are you stockpiling fuel, food and medicines North of the Border? If so, you are ready for Scotchit as well as Brexit.

    Then there is ScotStack, the twenty-mile HGV queue on either side of the enhanced border control. What provision has been made? This is but one of the further impediments to Scotland’s Independence. And then there is Quisling.

    To whom does the BBC report? The Privy Council of course.

  • Brianfujisan

    Disgusting Activity by the bbc.

    Well done Christopher Wylie for putting the Smug K. Wark firmly in her place.. But why was she so determined to go on lying to the uk. just can’t help it can they.

    Christopher Wylie on News Night tells K Wark a few facts –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2kj2qCyRtg

  • James

    Re the BBC, also watch out for their anti-Semitism campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, which seems to have come out of nowhere.

    And note that Labour MPs who back this are generally Iraq War supporters who also opposed any investigation into that war.

    • Sharp Ears

      The MSM is making much of the Labour Party’s disciplinary action against Ian Austin, Labour Dudley North.

      Second Labour MP faces disciplinary action in anti-Semitism row
      08:42, UK, Sunday 29 July 2018

      Ian Austin has been a strong critic of Jeremy Corbyn
      By Jon Craig, chief political correspondent

      A second senior Labour MP has been threatened with disciplinary action after a clash with a Jeremy Corbyn ally over anti-Semitism.

      Ian Austin, a former minister and aide to Gordon Brown, has received a letter from general secretary Jenny Formby accusing him of “abusive conduct in Parliament”.

      The letter was in response to a “heated discussion” between Mr Austin and Labour Party chairman Ian Lavery, one of Mr Corbyn’s closest allies, in the Commons earlier this month.

      The allegation against Mr Austin is almost identical to the threat of disciplinary action against veteran MP Margaret Hodge, who has admitted calling Mr Corbyn a “racist” and “anti-Semitic”.

      /..

      https://news.sky.com/story/second-labour-mp-faces-disciplinary-action-in-anti-semitism-row-11452907

      Austin is of the same ethnicity as Hodge and like her, a member of Labour Friends of Israel. His register of interests:

      Visits outside the UK
      Name of donor: Labour Friends of Israel
      Address of donor: BM LFI, London WC1N 3XX

      Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): flights, accommodation, meals, airport and taxi transfers, with a value of £1,500

      Destination of visit: Washington DC, USA

      Dates of visit: 23-28 March 2017

      Purpose of visit: To attend meetings and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Conference.’

      (That is AIPAC of course)

      Multiple mentions of ‘Israel’. A donation from Sir Trevor Chinn, et al.
      https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=11553

      • Sharp Ears

        https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11553/ian_austin/dudley_north/votes#foreignpolicy

        ____

        Austin has voted eight times against inquiries into the Iraq War. He also has a history of insulting Jeremy Corbyn publicly.

        ‘There was a tetchy exchange between Labour backbencher Ian Austin and the former shadow Welsh secretary Paul Flynn, who said MPs had been “bribed, bullied, bamboozled” into backing military action.

        Austin intervened to ask the deputy speaker if Flynn could produce evidence for his assertion, saying: “What a disgrace.”

        Flynn then clarified that he had only intended to suggest “political bribes” had been dangled before wavering backbenchers.

        “I am not suggesting that anyone took any money,” he said. “There are such things as political bribes, with inducements and offers, of which we are well aware in this place. There was a very heavy operation here to convince members to vote for war.”

        Flynn was one of only a handful of Labour MPs, including Dennis Skinner and Kelvin Hopkins, who defied the Labour whip to vote in favour of the motion.

        Senior backbenchers, including former ministers Ed Miliband, Margaret Beckett and Hilary Benn, turned out to join the Conservatives and vote down the motion.’

        MPs reject move to investigate Tony Blair over Iraq by 369 votes
        Labour MPs turn out in force to defeat Alex Salmond’s motion, accusing him of attempt to ‘pillory and scapegoat one individual’
        30 Nov 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/30/labour-mps-accuse-snp-of-opportunism-over-tony-blair-motion

        • Andyoldlabour

          Sharp Ears, both you, I and others, know that this so called “anti Semitism” campaign is no more than an attempt to turn the UK into a vassal state of the US/Israel, in order to totally ignore the vile excesses of the Israeli state..

          • Herbie

            “this so called “anti Semitism” campaign is no more than an attempt to turn the UK into a vassal state of the US/Israel, in order to totally ignore the vile excesses of the Israeli state.”

            It’s got nothing at all to do with the US or Israel.

            It’s simply the City of London trying to smear Corbyn, for fear he may put some small stop to their thieving the wealth of the British people.

            Once you get the financial parasites off your back, then you can sustainably grow your economy.

            That’s what they’re trying to stop.

            Think of the example it would set to others.

    • BarrieJ

      The ‘nowhere’ being Israel via Mossad/Israeli Embassy.
      Strange how without any evidence our politicians get so excited by the idea that Russia might be trying to influence our democracy, when they’re positively relaxed about Israel, despite very real evidence in the form of a Channel 4 ‘sting’, which our then Foreign Secretary couldn’t bury fast enough.

    • Charles Bostock

      I like what I read about Mr Ian Lavery MP.

      I liked the following in particular :

      “In March and April 2016 The Sunday Times and BBC Newsnight reported that it appeared Lavery had received £72,500 from a benevolent fund set up by sick miners. [24][25]. On 19 October 2017, in an edition of Newsnight, it was reported that Lavery had received £165,000 from a 10-member trade union, the Northumberland area of the National Union of Mineworkers, of which he was formerly general secretary. Lavery has denied anything improper occurred.[26]

      An inquiry by the official regulator, the Trade Union Certification Officer, concluded that, amongst other things:[27]

      “Spending on political objects appears to have been made from the Union’s General Fund in breach of section 71 of the 1992 Act.”
      “Firstly, the Union was not adequately able to explain why they should have taken full responsibility for the under-performance of the endowment policy taken out by Mr and Mrs Lavery.”
      “Secondly it is far from clear why the Union should have made an arrangement with the Provident and Benevolent Fund to write off the whole of Mr and Mrs Lavery’s £72,500 debt to them. This despite the fact that the endowment policy did have a value, it was later redeemed for a figure around £18,000. It would appear that Mr and Mrs Lavery may have been over-compensated for the underperformance of the endowment policy.” (According to the Financial Times, “the regulator found that Mr Lavery kept that money as well.”)[28]
      “the idea of a trade union purchasing in effect a share in its General Secretary’s home is a novel one and not one that I have previously come across”

      Although the Certification Officer chose not to investigate further[29][26] it did so as the union told it that it was “mindful of the expense of taking legal action” and “left with little choice but to accept.”[28]

      It was reported in the Financial Times that:[28]

      With regards to the £89,887 he received in “termination payments” when he left the union, “the union confirmed that it had no documentary evidence of any redundancy process or the decision to make the post redundant”.
      The union later decided it had overpaid the redundancy by £30,000 and asked for its return. Lavery said that he would only repay £15,000, saying that part of the payment was for a car allowance.
      Lavery made a notional profit of £8,500 by selling a 15 per cent stake in his house to the union in 2005 for £36,000 then buying it back in 2013 for £27,500. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards forced Lavery to apologise to the House of Commons for failing to declare the fact that the union had owned 15 per cent of his property.”

      • Rhis Jaggar

        Good to know you think bare-faced fraud is something to salivate over.

        If the reporting is factual, of course.

  • Bi-curious

    Dem private sector presstitutes also give good anal-ysis, only the kellners and murdochs pay top dollar for the previledge. But only a determined labour government will be able to demolish the systemic institutional bias within the beeb fostered by its long lines of boadens and gambaccinis.

    • JOML

      Dan, what’s Craig’s nationality to do with this article about the BBC? Are you a racist?

    • Republicofscotland

      Dan the circumstances have changed dramatically, such as we were told if we voted for independence, we’d be out of the EU, what joke that is now. Westminster can NEVER be trusted again when it comes to Scottish affairs.

      The best people to decide the affairs of Scots are Scots themselves.

  • Robert Graham

    Looks like your blog like many others has attracted the professional shit shifters who have been active for weeks now , every single Independence supporting site has been the target, these are not comments by passing individuals ,it is a concerted effort to close down discussion and stifle any debate or sharing of information, the common tactic is cause any and every form of disruption, visitors to any blog will be encouraged to engage with these shit shifters rather than discuss the current subject .
    That’s their job don’t assist them.

  • Republicofscotland

    Yip saw, and commented on Wings, the nefarious state broadcasters actions, it’s basically political censorship there’s no doubt about it.

    Even YT couldn’t point out the copyright infrignments head of YT received tweets from Wingers.

    Its all part of the rolling back of Holyroods powers, and the eventual negation of the parliament altogether. Lord Keen who’s currently defending the unions grab of powers in devolved areas through the Supreme court, summed up Westminster’s attitude in saying Westminster is sovereign not Holyrood.

    However sovereignty in Scotland lies with the peoole, not the crown nor the government but the people.

    The Ministry of Truth aka the BBC are in effect just an arm of the government doing its dirty work by spreading lies and falsehoods.

    Thankfully on the conclusion of the massive f*ck up that is Brexit Scots will go to the polls again and hopefully dissolve this tainetd union, and the BBC can f#ck off as well.

    A thought, if the shoe were on the other foot and the SNP said food medicines and blood needed to be stocked piled on Scottish independence the media including the state broadcaster would’ve gone into a feeding frenzy.

    Yes will win regardless of the unprecedented anti-Scottish vitrol exuded by the media, and in doing so the victory will be all that much sweeter.

    F#ck you Donalda and your BBC masters.

    • bj

      Sometimes to seize power is to seize its prop-machine.

      The fact that the spooks are inside doesn’t (yet) mean the army is outside.
      .

  • jazza

    stop paying the bloody bbc tv tax NOW – simple!! companies claim copyright infringement everyday on youtube – even though they do not own the copyright – youtube is a function of the globalists – FFS – this is obvious – I despair

  • Jon

    BBC Protest Event
    Pacific Quay

    11th August, 13.00 till 15:00

    Bring your placards and flags

    • Pete Barton

      Will see you there.
      @BBC: If you want to command respect up here, then publish the names of the ‘complainants’

      But you won’t.

      Undemocratic, unaccountable, arrogant, insensitive outfit.

      And to think, in my days as an RT op in the British Merchant Navy I regarded your service highly.

      How things have gone downhill.

  • Robert Malcolm Kay

    Jimmy Saville is raised within 20 seconds of this video starting.
    Yet Jimmy Saville also operated – extensively – within the NHS.
    Now, let’s imagine we changed the word ‘BBC’ for the words ‘NHS’ across this video?
    How much credibility would be left?
    The fact is that public institutions sometimes fail to live up to their high standards.
    As do all of us.

    • Herbie

      “The fact is that public institutions sometimes fail to live up to their high standards.”

      But, the BBC has been a propaganda outfit since its inception.

      That’s its whole history.

      The above video is just an example of how this works in practice.

      You can do the same for every major event since Reith.

      It’s easier though if you just skip the empiricism and firstly learn how territories are managed.

      It’s not exactly a secret. I mean, it’s all there in the Classics, and much codified since.

      No real need to go reinventing the wheel every time the BBC shows its true colours.

  • Sharp Ears

    How absolutely vile.

    ‘George Galloway
    Two Israël supporters have just been casually discussing the need for me to be murdered by “agents” in a Dubai hotel room @Twitter @TwitterSupport The incitement to murder will be with Twitter and the @metpoliceuk shortly. But I just wondered if our media might be interested…?

    3:28 PM – 28 Jul 2018
    https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1023334394138902529

    • Charles Bostock

      Has Gorgeous George given us humble members of the public any details of when and where this discussion is supposed to have taken place? Does he have names?

      Incidentally, has GG got round to initiating “legal proceedings” against Philip Cross and Mr X yet? Everything seems to have gone quiet on that front, how strange.

  • IMcK

    Scottish Independence is not a subject I would normally comment on but there were a few issues that I am not aware were addressed during the independence ‘debate’ and it would be interesting to hear some views on the following 2 matters that I consider significant:

    1. In respect of ‘Scotland’s’ energy resources, given that the whole of the UK’s populace are currently the ‘beneficiaries’ of the state element of the revenue for off-shore oil and gas, is it likely that a Scottish independence agreement would cede the majority of such revenues to the small leaving minority?

    2. The infrastructure associated with the UK’s naval nuclear facilities in Scotland is very extensive and I would suggest impractical to move/relocate, both physically and operationally (re its strategic position). Given such facilities are currently seen as essential by the UK ruling regime, what is the likelihood of the remainder of the UK agreeing to abandon such facilities (and unimpeded access to them) within any defined timescale?

    • Contrary

      My opinion is that these matters were addressed, and are still being addressed.

      Are you happy with your media coverage of it? That is why independent sites are very important and should not be silenced.

    • bj

      the UK’s naval nuclear facilities in Scotland is very extensive and I would suggest impractical to move/relocate, both physically and operationally (re its strategic position)

      To make such a move more feasible “re its strategic position”, it might also be advisable for said Navy to seek another arch-enemy.

    • Contrary

      Here is one idea for a rental agreement, which seems a fairly popular idea among English voters (through a panelbase poll).

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-bank-of-the-clyde/

      Having self determination and self government does not mean that suddenly all ties are cut, it just means that negotiations will take place as they do between any normal countries and agreements will be reached. I personally would like to see all nuclear weapons gone, but that’s not going to happen overnight, so in this case an agreement will need to be reached. It is likely Coulport facilities could be moved quicker than Faslane as well, if necessary.

      • IMcK

        I think the Wings Over Scotland article that you reference is illustrative of the lack of any debate. The import of the article is based on the premise that retention of the existing naval nuclear facilities will be negotiated reasonably between equal partners, that moving the facilities is a feasible proposition, that any considerations of the ‘English’ people are of relevance and that Scotland will have the whip hand based on the facilities location. My view is that the intent of the remainder UK regime would be retention of the facilities for as long as they considered the ‘Deterrent’ necessary and they would dictate the terms since they would carry the biggest stick. Yet the independence side were left to claim they would effectively dictate the terms of the facilities survival without challenge by the unionists side. I suspect some of the logic for this might be not to precipitate an independence ‘we’ll see about you dictating terms’ vote. In short, in the event of Independence, I suggest this would be an ugly matter.

        Similarly in respect of ‘Scotland’s’ energy resources, the independence side are able to claim, unchallenged, that an independent Scotland would wax fat. My previous post references the obvious issues regarding off-shore oil and gas and which might also apply to some degree to offshore wind. On-shore resources might be less controversial but the idea advanced by the Independence side (including on the video posted by Craig) that Scotland would be significant beneficiaries by continuation of simply pumping wind generated electricity into the grid at the current subsidised rates including to UK and European recipients is a fallacy. Once again I suspect reasons for the lack of challenge was avoidance of raising voter hackles and likely failure of the front men to understand the issue.

        • Hatuey

          Actually, IMck, I think you are approaching this from an indoctrinated position. I suspect you are a Times or Guardian reader or something.

          We can leave the Naval stuff aside since it has actually already been discussed (even in the mainstream media) at length. Nobody has suggested that they would be immediately ordered to pack up and go right away. Obviously it would be a subject for negotiation, just as England’s withdrawal from Ireland, India, Egypt, and so many other countries was negotiated once it became clear their presence there was unwanted.

          This is a complete lie: “the independence side were left to claim they would effectively dictate the terms of the [naval] facilities survival without challenge by the unionists side…” Not a mistake, a lie. It would take you 5 seconds on Google to find out the truth, so it must be a lie.

          If we remove the pompous waffle from what you say on energy, you are basically suggesting that Scotland couldn’t expect to be “significant beneficiaries” after gaining independence. You don’t seem to say why you think that, just that it’s some given truism of some sort. Thus;

          “is it likely that a Scottish independence agreement would cede the majority of such revenues to the small leaving minority?”

          So, here’s your answer. There are lots of resources in Scotland that the UK as a whole has contributed towards and if we only look at those from your indoctrinated position it possibly makes sense to say the sort of junk you say. That. of course, is to completely disregard the other side of the coin which you don’t mention at all — how about Westminster, Buckingham Palace, the M1 and all the other roads, infrastructure, naval facilities, banks (including the bank of England) and everything else that Scotland has contributed towards?

          That feeling you are currently experiencing in your spine is the feeling you get when you are embarrassed and it’s perfectly natural under the circumstances. But there’s more.

          There are many precedents in International Law when it comes to disputed land and resources and thankfully over the years a fully understood and relatively clear system of arbitration has come into being. This makes it a fairly simple task to discern precisely what oil and gas fields would fall into the legal and rightful ownership of an independent Scotland based purely on Geography.

          This is good, it saves me from typing and you from reading. Suffice to say, it would take about 2 minutes for you to establish that more than 90% of currently British oil fields are actually in Scottish waters (that’s not my judgement or the judgement of the SNP, it’s International law). So, there you go.

          P.S. please don’t try to argue that as the leaving party in the relationship Scotland somehow loses its rights under International law or anything along those lines. If you do, I will make you feel even more stupid than you feel now.

          • IMcK

            Well is it worth responding? But I don’t make many comments so I’ll (most likely) waste some time.

            A significant element of your post is given over to insult:
            Indoctrinated; Times/Guardian reader; lies; pompous waffle; embarrassed feeling in the spine (under the onslaught of The Great Hatuey (TGH) of course. I suggest to look up the meaning of pompous); some of what I say possibly makes sense … oohps no, I’ve read on, its junk; stupid.

            Of course, none of your diatribe addresses the issues I have raised, rather it informs something of your own character. In fact (and I realise this is a slightly more difficult concept to follow, but do try) it detracts from any dialogue. Is this what they refer to as trolling? I feel sure you will have some expertise on that one. I suggest you study carefully Craig’s next post ‘The ubiquity of evil’ and see if you can work out on which side of the barricades said diatribe indicates you would likely be.

            I will attempt to demonstrate how discourse works:
            Future of the Naval nuclear facilities:
            TGH – Its been discussed at length, google it
            And a summary with regard to the issues I raise is?
            TGH – Nobody has suggested immediate removal
            True nobody. So to what purpose do you reference it?
            TGH – They would be negotiated
            And your response to my comments re such negotiations is?

            Energy resources:
            TGH – Scotland has ‘lots of resources’ and I just mention those from my indoctrinated position
            I mention off-shore Oil and gas, on and off-shore wind. So the resources I should be talking about are? Ah no wait I’ve read the rest of your paragraph – ‘Westminster palace, Buckingham palace, the M1, all the other roads, infrastructure, naval facilities, banks (including the bank of England) and everything else’. Are you for real?
            TGH – International law covers ownership issues and for off-shore resources its all based on Geography, so there [I] go!
            And the geographical aspects of such law trump the matters I raise of existing division of ownership on the basis of?

            And then you add an issue all by yourself and suggest if I try to ‘argue’ the argument you have just argued (not if I try to argue against it!), I’ll feel the wrath of The Great Hatuey! I’ll not detail your fault in respect of this item as I hope that you might now be able to work it out for yourself …. think of it as a little test.

            If you study my above review of this correspondence to date, you may just learn a little about the form a civilised discussion might take. I realise these concepts are probably alien to you, but I really would suggest you give it a try, possibly it is still not too late.

            Then again I might be wrong. Maybe you’ll receive the call to join international negotiating teams as their secret weapon, to be wheeled out when negotiations get difficult, whereupon you can deliver your killer line: ‘Its international law stupid, google it’!

          • Hatuey

            IMcK, your tone seems somewhat transformed. That’s good.

            The gist of your original two posts was to suggest that Scottish independence supporters cannot assume that after independence they (or Scotland) would be what you call “significant beneficiaries” in terms of energy resources.

            You still haven’t explained why that is in your mind a fact that requires no supporting evidence and you have provided no evidence. I get the impression it’s based on your gut feeling.

            You also make a similar point with regards to Faslane and in that typical sneering understated English way suggest that Rule Britannia will not be dictated to on this matter either.

            It’s noteworthy that you dismiss out of hand any suggestion that Scotland might have a say or rightful claim to a share of resources and facilities based in England that Scottish people have over the centuries made contributions towards. Accordingly, only England has rights in this impending divorce case.

            Can I point out that I have no desire or compulsion to satisfy any definitions you might hold about what constitutes civility or politeness or being diplomatic. I’m a historian and am well versed in the duplicitous ways of well spoken gentlemen posing as honourable human beings as they rob people blind, etc.

            Moreover, I found the import of your assumptions and claims regarding the sovereign rights of my country deeply annoying and the quality of your prose and its seeming politeness did absolutely nothing to disguise the fact that what you said amounted to the usual veiled crap that has been holding this country back for years.

            As you and yours are about to find out in the Brexit negotiations, if you haven’t already, Scotland isn’t the only country that finds it so very tedious.

            Let’s be frank about England today and it’s position in the world — it’s a forum, after all, where we get to say things that don’t get said in real life; the closest thing England has to a friend in this world is the US led by Donald Trump. Good luck with that.

            It’s possible, and I don’t discount it at all, that you don’t know you are being pompous and making arguments and points from an indoctrinated English position of assumed superiority. Again, we are accustomed to that — the whole world is accustomed to it and as sick as most people in Scotland are of it. If that’s true, though, it doesn’t make it any less insulting or wrong.

            I see no reason to respond to anything else you have said, particularly the idea that I am some sort of troll or the idea that you are a victim here.

            My advice to you is to consider the distinction between appearing diplomatic and reasonable and actually being diplomatic and reasonable. Do that and you and your people may some day find a new place in the world that doesn’t involve shafting and offending others.

          • IMcK

            The website does not allow a post in response to your latest post so I reply (to that post), somewhat belatedly here.

            I do not believe such an aggressive response to any questioning of a rose coloured view of Scottish Independence is characteristic of your countrymen. Such premise is consistent with the referendum result. I suspect that even many of the Yes vote would seek to dissociate themselves from such ‘red-faced, axe-wielding’ rhetoric that some of their detractors might interpret as ‘reverting to type’.

            I do however detect some diminution in your tone and possibly even a willingness to engage in the subject matter. Accordingly whilst I believe the original logic presented is neither obscure nor highfalutin, I shall summarise with respect to those few relevant comments raised.

            My suggestion is that on-shore and off-shore assets would be treated differently; on-shore being divided at the border (naval nuclear facilities being considered separately for an undefined period) and remainder UK invoking pre-ownership into separate negotiations for off-shore assets. In respect of existing on-shore energy resources, most public discussion reverts to wind generated electricity which enjoys subsidised status spread across UK consumers which cannot be assumed to continue as is. Indeed, as a non-researched guesstimate, it may be that Scotland’s hydro (and pumped storage) might at least vie with wind for financial benefit.

            Of lesser relevance, my ‘analysis’ does not arise from any media, political campaigning nor website, rather from independent consideration.

            I find it surprising that an historian would seemingly treat with complacency if not contempt the privileged status enjoyed by these islands, free of major international conflict for so long. Further that division of the UK might proceed in a gentlemanly like fashion with accord to a set of rules and regulations.

            Btw – a victim assumes a blow has been both landed and impacted and whilst I suggest that the inexorability of logic presented supports the former, the excessive thickness of at least one of our skins precludes any possibility of the latter.

    • Rhis Jaggar

      Well Russia maintained its naval base at Sevastopol after Ukraine became a separate country. Only when NATO war games suggested it might come under threat that the Crimea referendum occurred.

      One option is therefore for Scotland to lease facilities to rUK.

  • Hatuey

    I’ve noticed a few people compare in likeness the Brexit ‘project fear’ campaign with the Scottish ‘project fear’ campaign. They are in fact incomparable; it’s like comparing the “war” against Palestinians with the First World War. Yes, they are both wars in the sense that they involved guns, bombs, and violence but that’s where the similarities end.

    The Pro-Brexit camp had powerful backers in politics, the media, business, in foreign countries, and everywhere. The Scottish Independence campaign had the SNP and faced a hostile world from the start, including the whole British establishment, all 3 of the big parties with their branches in Scotland, foreign governments, virtually all big businesses, and most importantly 99.9% of the mainstream media (including the market-leading BBC).

    Of course, we can also assume MI5 were engaged in the matter too. We know, for example, that the Yes campaign’s email server was hacked – to this day we don’t know who by. And the Tory leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, seems to have admitted that she knew what the result would be weeks before the actual vote took place because she was privy to sampling of some sort. Very odd. As I understand it she was questioned by the police after complaints were made.

    As if that wasn’t enough, celebrities across the board were “encouraged” to campaign against Scottish Independence and it looks like David Beckham believed doing so would win him a knighthood.Where did he get that idea?
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/2801491/david-beckham-grovelled-to-the-queen-obe-bid-beckileaks/

    The Yes campaign even had Obama express against them, the EU, NATO, the IMF, and a pile of other New World Order type organisations.

    Hardly surprising that pensioners in Scotland were to succumb to fear and vote against independence in high numbers, especially after the British State informed that that they would lose their pensions, passports, and right to use the pounds they had stuffed away.

    Add to that the constant barrage of flagrant lies that were deployed against the Independence idea, lies that couldn’t be countered because the SNP and Yes movement was never allowed any platform to respond.

    Brexit supporters in England think they deserve a pat on the back for rising above Project Fear in the EU referendum. The truth is they don’t know what Project Fear is.

    Sit in a field alone and Invite a 1000 thugs to set upon you with baseball bats. Tell them to hit you until your arms are too broken to be raised in defence; only when they see yellow brain fluid on the ground are they allowed to stop. Do that and you will have the right to discuss Project Fear.

    • Contrary

      Very well said Hatuey, there was a lot more money on both sides of the Brexit debate for that matter. Yes was very much left to pretty basic funding and relied on volunteers’ hard work, with the media howling outrage when a couple, who were lottery winners, made a substantial one-off donation.

      You forgot about the asteroid that was going to impact Scotland should we vote yes. Ahh, good times.

    • Herbie

      “Where did he get that idea?”

      Dunno.

      But “Lady Victoria” could be a smart branding move.

      Rhymes with the Posh.

      Innit.

    • Herbie

      “Sit in a field alone and Invite a 1000 thugs to set upon you with baseball bats. Tell them to hit you until your arms are too broken to be raised in defence; only when they see yellow brain fluid on the ground are they allowed to stop. Do that and you will have the right to discuss Project Fear.”

      True.

      Worse than growing up in even the worst years of the NI Troubles.

      But yeah, they always make a big big drama out of a wee bit of change.

      These elites.

      Never want to do anything face to face around a table.

      Like civilised people.

      No. It’s always fighting, and blood and guts and stuff.

      A Trial by Combat, rather than debate. Seems to be something cathartic in it, for them.

      Trauma of Public school, no doubt.

      • Rhis Jaggar

        Every bloody place of work is the same. Nothing to do with Scotland. I had plenty of Scots resident in England do it to me in my own country, telling me how I could live, hacking my private computers, getting access to my banking details etc etc etc. Those w***ers voted Independence when they were not being spooks.

        You really must learn that Scots have people every bit as disgusting as the English in their ranks.

        • Herbie

          First off, the Scots are a particular people with their own long and distinguished history.

          What you mean is Scottish, the generic term for someone from Scotland, who may or may not be a Scot.

          Sure, I can imagine there’s horrible Scottish people out there, especially the C 17th/18th Banker crew and sprogs.

          But Scots are pure and holy and wholesome, and lived at peace and godly till the invaders came.

          Hobbit-like they were, a light unto the nations.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.