NationalCollective is back online today, with an amended article repeating allegations about Ian Taylor which were already in the public domain.
While taking a highly principled position about their own right to free speech, they then simultaneously seek to restrict the political speech of others which is surely not right. There is a wider point about campaign finance, but since both Yes and Better Together are political campaigns operating under the current regulations and given nobody is alleging that either the donation was made illegally or the money came from illegal activity, that’s not really here nor there.
It’s also not the point National Collective are making. They’re claiming some sort of moral taint in the money due to some extremely shady dealings which are sadly common place in the oil industry. And oil industry which is the economic underpinning for the Yes camp’s economic vision for Scotland. So that is at least somewhat problematic.
Between posting defamatory articles and breaching copyright law National Collective seem to be developing a pattern of sailing close to the legal wind regarding Better Together and then crying foul when it occurs.
It’s all a bit childish.
#1 by Morag Eyrie on April 18, 2013 - 6:08 pm
How exactly do National Collective “seek to restrict the political speech of others”? What do you even mean by “political speech”? Links to examples or explaining yourself more clearly is needed, I have no clue what you are talking about here.
#2 by Aidan on April 18, 2013 - 6:11 pm
There’s a link to it in the article. Attempting to restrict someone’s legal political donation is an attempt to restrict their speech.
#3 by James on April 18, 2013 - 6:19 pm
Oh, the American argument, where money is speech, like in Citizens United?
#4 by Aidan on April 18, 2013 - 6:23 pm
Donating within the law, and nobody is suggesting anything else, is surely a political act?
There’s an argument for the law to be changed to limit large donations but that isn’t the case being made.
#5 by Graeme on April 18, 2013 - 9:14 pm
And that makes it ‘speech’ how?
#6 by Aidan on April 19, 2013 - 10:48 am
Because money is necessary in order to e.g. print leaflets and disseminate views. Unless we’re going to take a highly narrow view of speech which only involves vocal articulation.
#7 by Ross on April 18, 2013 - 6:15 pm
Oil does not underpin the Yes campaign’s argument. It might underpin the SNP’s vision but certainly not that of many other groups and individuals campaigning for a Yes vote.
Regardless, National Collective’s point is consistent. You can’t dismiss the roots of Better Together’s donation and NC simply wanted to provoke a debate around the ethics of campaign donations. By all accounts Vitol are now happy with the republished article which contains the same key points as the previous one.
#8 by Aidan on April 18, 2013 - 6:29 pm
Really? it’s the paragraph’s 3 through 7 on http://www.yesscotland.net/will_an_independent_scotland_be_financially_secure
and the only other current industry mentioned is a counter-factual Scottish regulated financial sector that didn’t suffer the financial crash. So.. erm..
Regarding the article itself – that’s rather my point. The key points are not what was being challenged so why the “WE WILL NEVER BE SILENCED BY EVIL BETTER TOGETHER” rhetoric if not grandstanding?
And I note that National Collective aren’t talking about the large donations that have been made to Yes – if it’s a problem of large campaign donations then surely that applies to both campaigns?
#9 by Nkosi on April 19, 2013 - 10:25 am
You might find that the ethics and morality a very different between the two donations that you are talking about.
#10 by Greg Moodie on April 18, 2013 - 6:23 pm
Donate to National Collective here: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/national-collective-support-the-arts-campaign-for-scottish-independence
#11 by Craig on April 18, 2013 - 6:23 pm
http://reidfoundation.org/2013/04/the-difference-between-disclosure-and-transparency/
#12 by Graeme on April 18, 2013 - 6:26 pm
Is this an article or just a short, bitter slur?
If the ‘author’ knows the details of the case can they provide them? Are they just extremely bitter than the no campaign has been found out?
As The Herald and the Jimmy Reid Foundation coverage demonstrates, the no side seem willing to take money from absolutely anyone.
Well done to National Collective for shining a light on this.
And shame on Aidan for this petty attack.
#13 by Aidan on April 18, 2013 - 6:31 pm
I’m only commenting on the publically available information.
#14 by GML1320 on April 18, 2013 - 6:30 pm
Uvavu
#15 by Richard Lucas on April 18, 2013 - 8:36 pm
This is poor stuff. You were caught out taking a dodgy bung, your lawyers screwed up, you have sided with a man who deals with murderers and criminals. You respond with sanctimony. You’d have kept more credibility if you’d apologised, sucked it up, and sent the blood-stained money back.
#16 by Indy on April 18, 2013 - 8:46 pm
It remains to be seen if anything published is actually defamatory, does it not? Clearly both the pro-Yes websites which have received lawyer’s letters are ready to go to court and I don’t think anyone should prejudge the outcome of that.
As for equating donating money with free speech – I find that extraordinary. It actually supports rather than undermines the case put forward by National Collective.
#17 by Peter A Bell on April 18, 2013 - 8:49 pm
Your title states that the National Collective article was defamatory. By what authority do you decide such things?
#18 by Stuart Winton on April 19, 2013 - 5:15 am
So why did they and the Herald feel the need to amend their original articles to include a right of reply from Ian Taylor/Vitol if the articles weren’t defamatory?
Disappointing as well that I read both the NC’s articles posted yesterday and only found out elsewhere that the original article had been amended. Certainly not the impression conveyed by the two articles.
Interesting also that the Herald published a lengthy right of reply, whereas the NC merely added very brief comments to their original. Indeed, these seem to be merely added on to the existing paragraphs rather than the more obvious course of action of including Vitol’s responses in new paragraphs, presumably to play down their significance.
Indeed, if I was Ian Taylor’s lawyers I wouldn’t be too happy about the way the NC has presented their response, but from what I can gather the article’s author states that Vitol is ‘pleased’ with NC’s response, so who am I to quibble!
Not that I don’t think there are serious questions to be asked about Ian Taylor’s donation, such as the Labour MP John Mann’s hypocritical stance on his ‘dirty money’ claims, the OTT response to Angus Robertson’s/the SNP’s cock-up regarding Robertson’s quote, and not to mention Better Together’s equally OTT claims about the SNP and Alex Salmond orchestrating a smear campaign.
But rather than the NC being full and frank yesterday about how they’d responded, I feel slightly misled by the way they presented it.
#19 by cynicalHighlander on April 18, 2013 - 8:57 pm
So its ‘Dirty money’ when its given to the Tories as a political donation but as clean as a whistle when it is donated to Better Together by someone who has no vote in the constitutional make up of a country. I thought that was restricted to the underhand ways of the various secret services around the world.
#20 by Derick fae Yell on April 18, 2013 - 9:00 pm
Make your mind up which side you are on
Bitter together indeed.
#21 by Aidan on April 19, 2013 - 10:50 am
I’m against independence, other editors are for.
#22 by Peter A Bell on April 19, 2013 - 11:03 am
Are you against independence for all nations? Or only Scotland?
#23 by Aidan on April 19, 2013 - 11:18 am
All nations
#24 by Peter A Bell on April 19, 2013 - 11:33 am
So you’re an imperialist on a global scale. Do you have any thoughts about politics in the real world?
#25 by Oldnat on April 18, 2013 - 9:01 pm
“I’m only commenting on the publically [sic] available information.” As you are perfectly free to do. Your equation of money with free speech is what I find disturbing about your stance. No one was trying to prevent Ian Taylor from declaring his support for the Union, and having his views published in the Herald – though even there that was because of his donation to BT. His views would probably had little coverage otherwise.
#26 by Colin Dunn on April 18, 2013 - 9:07 pm
Dear me. I used to enjoy Better Together, but this is risible stuff. A real shame. Methinks the green-eyed monster is at work.
#27 by Graeme on April 18, 2013 - 9:26 pm
I can’t understand the point the author is trying to make. National Collective have criticised the judgement of BT in accepting the donation from a figure with dubious business ethics. Not Taylor’s right to have a opinion. Money isn’t speech, and it sets an insane precedent to treat it as such (as others have already pointed out)
His points about the oil industry are nonsense. What has been alleged by various papers and National Collective boils down to corruption on the part of Taylor and Vitol. That isn’t a necessary corollary of selling dinosaur bones, especially if, as an independent country, you have a rational system of oversight and corporate regulation.
Also, the copyright stuff (“breaching copyright law”). What is he referring to?
#28 by Derrick McGuire on April 18, 2013 - 10:01 pm
Oh dear. The relevant counters have been made by others already so I won`t re-iterate.
My question is a genuine one – is it now safe to assume the word “Together” is missing from the title of this website ?
#29 by Keef on April 18, 2013 - 10:54 pm
Aidan, a very narrow and ill thought out opinion. You do your self and this site a gross mis-service. Nevertheless, I do hope you receive the same public support that National Collective so rightly deserved if ever some big money bully attempts to shut you down.
If your articles are consist of drivel like this, it hardly seems a possibility mind.
#30 by Davie Park on April 18, 2013 - 11:20 pm
I don’t post very often on BN but feel I must comment here. I’ve read many posts by you in the past Aiden and have always had a grudging respect for the way you engage with the issues at hand. Must admit I’m disappointed by this. You’re coming across as just another wheedling little apparatchik.
More substantively, if Vitol’s past dealings are so unremarkable, then why the girning from Labour when Mr Taylor made donations to the Tory party? It stinks to high heaven of hypocrisy.
Also (and I may be mistaken here) didn’t Blair McDougall say something about Better Together not taking large donations from outwith Scotland?
#31 by Iain on April 19, 2013 - 9:29 am
‘More substantively, if Vitol’s past dealings are so unremarkable, then why the girning from Labour when Mr Taylor made donations to the Tory party? It stinks to high heaven of hypocrisy. Also (and I may be mistaken here) didn’t Blair McDougall say something about Better Together not taking large donations from outwith Scotland?’
Precisely.
I’m guessing on these two points, it’ll be answers there came none from the author of the piece.
#32 by Aidan on April 19, 2013 - 1:06 pm
The Labour party and Better Together aren’t the same thing, and I think there’s a substantial difference between a political party with policies taking money from someone and a referendum campaign (which, by definition, has no policies in the same way Yes doesn’t have policies).
The registration issue I don’t know about: the fact we’ve got such a long, unregulated run up to the date is problematic.
#33 by Peter A Bell on April 19, 2013 - 1:53 pm
Yes Scotland doesn’t seem to have a problem either with donations or the “unregulated run up to the date”. Which, in reality, is no longer than the run-up to an election.
#34 by Richard on April 19, 2013 - 3:26 am
Very disappointed, Aidan. I’ve read your previous posts and know you’re much better than this. Poor show.
#35 by ? on April 19, 2013 - 5:42 am
The National Collective now has to publicise the criminal records of all collective members.
Seriously. Is this an art collective, or a political collective?
#36 by Aidan on April 19, 2013 - 11:07 am
Eh?
#37 by Helen Yates on April 19, 2013 - 9:23 am
I thought I’d heard it all from Bitter Together but this tops the lot so far, How in the world can anyone take you lot serious, Labour is corrupt from the top down,You have become a laughing stock in Scotland.A blind hatred for one man stops you from even considering the FACT that Alex Salmond and the SNP have done more for Scotland than you have ever done, but i expect you are running scared now that the days of you having your nose stuck in the Westminster trough is coming to and end and your cushy lifestyles at the expence of your own people is will soon be over,The people of Scotland are finally starting to wake up and come 2014 you will be put to sleep permenately.
#38 by Ken on April 19, 2013 - 9:36 am
“breaching copyright law”
That’s a new one. A bit [Citation needed] I think. Evidence or assertion where this happened?
#39 by Aidan on April 19, 2013 - 10:52 am
That would be this
#40 by Peter A Bell on April 19, 2013 - 11:06 am
YouTube’s lawyers decided there was no breach of copyright. Are you claiming to know better than them? On what basis do you make such a claim?
#41 by Ken on April 19, 2013 - 11:24 am
Sorry, I thought it referred to the Vitol article. My mistake.
On the copyright breach – you say they have breached the law, i.e they have broken the law. If I recall correctly (though I am open to being corrected), this has just been a claim to date with no adjudication. Therefore, they have not been found guilty of any copyright law breach, and so far are not guilty of breaking any law. Aren’t you defaming them as law breakers?
Youtube is also notorious for receiving takedown notices based on other companies issuing copyright claims that have nothing to do with anything.
A great link here shows that a company (Rumblefish) claimed copyright over several videos that had birds singing in the background and claimed copyright infringement based on those ambient and natural birdsongs.
http://boingboing.net/2012/02/27/rumblefish-claims-to-own-copyr.html
#42 by BaffieBox on April 19, 2013 - 10:04 am
So… no actual comment on the questions being asked of Better Together then?
Not even a discussion on why they are, or are not in this case, legitimate questions to ask? Also, I’ve journalists and others “commentators” who are mocking or accusing National Collection in a fashion similar to this article, to clarify exactly what lies have been posted or what might constitute defamation in the offending article – none have offered to expand on their contempt of National Collective.
I am more than willing to consider the Better Together, Vitol or Ian Taylor side in this whole sorry episode, but none of the above, nor the Better Together parties, nor the sneering Twitterati, nor this article have made any attempt to actually address the questions that have been raised, or elaborate on why the questions are inappropriate.
I can only imagine the utter contempt from Better Together and the MSM were Yes Scotland to accept a £500K donation from Sean Connery or Brian Souter. This whole farce is highlighting some serious problems that should be debated.
#43 by Aidan on April 19, 2013 - 11:07 am
I don’t hold National Collective in contempt, I do find the “oh, we did a bit of agit-prop and it had consequences” a bit tedious. You never saw the KLF whinge about it.
I’d go and find the offending passages but as NC removed them and I don’t fancy digging around Google Cache it’s a bit difficult but, IIRC, skirted along the lines of “Better Together funder linked to war crimes”, much like this.
Nobody is saying the questions are illegitimate – but AFAIK there’s nothing new in the National Collective piece which wasn’t in, say, this Guardian article from 12 years ago.
Nobody is alleging that the donation broke the law or came from an illegal source, the case basically comes down to “we don’t like tax evasion or the oil industry”. Which is understandable, I don’t particularly like them either, but that’s a endemic problem in politics, not something unique to Better Together, the Tories, Yes, the SNP, Labour or the Lib Dems.
There’s an argument to be had about large donations but that applies to campaigns and parties generally. The hectoring about “OMG unionists love war criminals” had fairly predictable consequences, which an unkind soul might suggest was the desired effect given their subsequent actions and choice of counsel.
#44 by Graeme on April 20, 2013 - 10:29 am
I followed this case.
The article doesn’t even mention ‘tax evasion’ and the google cache version I have doesn’t either.
If you are so hopelessly misinformed on the nature of this case you shouldn’t be posted wildly assertive claims that it is defamatory.
You should remove this petty little piece or apologise for it out of decency.
#45 by Doug Daniel on April 19, 2013 - 11:04 am
“It’s all a bit childish” – that was my view of this article as well. At least the author hasn’t completely lost his capacity for self-criticism.
#46 by Aidan on April 19, 2013 - 11:07 am
I love you too Doug.
#47 by Bella on April 19, 2013 - 11:47 am
Speechless that Better Nation published this
#48 by Bella on April 19, 2013 - 11:51 am
I do find the “oh, we did a bit of agit-prop and it had consequences” a bit tedious.
You are not the person being threatened with legal action. Not agit-prop if you put yourself in their shoes.
This is embarrassing.
#49 by Aidan on April 19, 2013 - 12:52 pm
I’m sure it’s been a tough week for all involved but given the original content of the article it can hardly have been surprising.
#50 by Bella on April 19, 2013 - 3:37 pm
So you agree it’s not ‘agit-prop’ then?
#51 by Chris on April 19, 2013 - 12:17 pm
Is anyone seriously suggesting that the people of Scotland be denied the information they need to make an informed choice on the referendum?
And if the state is not going to pay for it, someone else has to. The Yes campaign are funded by a lottery winner, saving them the embarassment of going cap-in-hand to a bus billlionaire bigot.
I’d rather not take money from any rich people at all. They tend to want their pound of flesh. But we need to be in a reasonablly level playing field if people are to have an informed choice.
So those suggesting that the donation be returned need to decide how the campaign be funded. Or be up front and admit that they don’t want the No campaign to be funded.
Which is it, boys?
#52 by Rowboat on April 19, 2013 - 6:03 pm
The difference being that the No campaign is being bankrolled by big business interests from outwith Scotland, which subverts our national debate. Do you also propose that the Chinese be allowed to fund the CPGB or SSP’s future election campaigns?
#53 by Bella on April 19, 2013 - 3:36 pm
Why and how would ‘the people of Scotland be denied the information they need to make an informed choice on the referendum?’
That doesn’t make any sense. In what way does Taylor’s £500,000 help the free flow of information? I’m confused.
#54 by Chris on April 19, 2013 - 3:54 pm
Because both sides need money to run campaigns. Without money they can’t provide the campaign materials nor pay the staff, or the expenses of voluntters, to write, plan and research their campaign.
#55 by Indy on April 19, 2013 - 11:29 pm
This is true and yet … money can be found. We have seen, for example, some grim warnings about what might befall the people threatened with legal action in terms of their own finances if they lose the case. But if that happened the money would be found by their supporters. When it is really needed people will dig deep.
This is what rather puzzles me about this row. The Weirs winning the lottery was a godsend for the Yes side, as was the extremely generous bequest from Edwin Morgan,not least because both sources are unimpeachable.
Had that money not been so very generously given, the Yes campaign and the SNP would be having to work a lot harder at fundraising. So yes we all see the benefits of large donations.
But Better Together is the campaign of choice of the British Establishment – I don’t think anyone would argue with that. So they really don’t have to worry about finding money because the British Establishment have money. So they could afford to be choosy.
if I was them I wouldn’t be looking for a relatively small number of large donations but for a much larger number of smaller donations -small being a relative concept obviously. Rather than one person donating 500k I would have been looking for ten people to donate 50k or twenty people to donate 25k.
They would be able to get that no bother and it would look better if a larger number of people gave smaller amounts. Even if there is no controversy -whether real or manufactured – around a particular individual donating a very large sum of money to a political cause it is almost always viewed with suspicion.
Maybe Better Together will take a different approach going forward, but it would have been better for them if they had started out that way perhaps.
#56 by Patrick Roden on April 19, 2013 - 10:37 pm
Aidan,
Do you really believe no country should be independent?
Do you really believe big businessmen should be able to become the largest donors in referendums, or political parties.
You do realise that these beliefs are identical to those of the ‘New World Order’ !
So it was all true ! lol.
#57 by chris on April 20, 2013 - 12:36 pm
Rowboat: I think the opinion of a Scot living outside Scotland is valid
It’s hardly interference from a foreign power. You’re alsp conflating the foreign donations issue with the complaint about the morality of the donation
Maybe that is the issue for you.
I suspect that if the SNP didn’t have the support of the lottery winners they wouldn’t be proposing this convoluted funding plan which would just happen to closw down the No campaign. You would think they were not interested in winning fairly.