Implications of Scottish Independence

[Craig B]

Young Scots choose to go to London.

London bleeds talent from all over the UK and the world. As Hollywood will bleed talent from British drama. And Rangers will bleed talent from Partick Thistle.

In the SNP's Scotland, will there be no way for young Scots to follow their ambition? Will Arbroath have the same job openings as Edinburgh?

Individuals being able to stay at home or go pursue their dreams is a good thing.

I'm pretty certain that the point being made is that Scots with ambition will not be obliged to leave their country to fulfil it. Of course, if people still do wish to leave an independent Scotland there will be no Soviet-style border guards to stop them. I don't think we've had that scary story yet.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I wholly disagree with the content and the tenor of the article.

I wondered if you might...

The issue of voting systems lies at the heart of the piece IMO. By 2010, the PR system was well established for Holyrood and I suspect what really upset Campbell was the difference in the result between a Holyrood election and a Westminster election - specifically as it affected SNP representation in London.

The SNP in Scotland had received an increased mandate at Holyrood. Now, Scotland swung right back to sending a Labour dominated representative to London.

Campbell saw that as a reversion to old, unthinking habit. (As do I).

I'm divided in my own mind over FPTP / PR. As you say, any system has artifacts and consequences which will be of advantage to some and disadvantage to others.
We don't want an Italian situation with a new government every year, but too much stability can be a bad thing, too.

My preference would be for all political candidates to be independents and for voters to choose the person best qualified for the job, on the basis of past experience and ability and I'd like to see an exam of some sort for all candidates to demonstrate ability and filter out the raving loonies.
In fact, I'd like to see the end of party politics entirely. (My gripe about Scottish independence is not that it's too radical an idea, but that it's not nearly radical enough.)

Regarding the formation of a government post-election, the unwritten constitutional rule is that the monarch invites the leader of the party with the most parliamentary seats to form a government. That seems fair to me - but again, if people have an issue with that, then it needs to be debated before any election and formation of a government.

The whole unwritten constitution thing is a classic British cludge, justified by the fact it mostly works. As with the question of an acceptable minimum "yes" vote though, this really should have been fixed long ago. Did the Tories have a justifiable mandate to form a government in 2010? I don't think so and I'm as close to a Tory as you'll find north of Newcastle.

Incidentally, if one were to adopt Campbell's "reasoning" in this area, then there would be chaos (and constitutional crisis) every time there was no one party with an overall majority (i.e. a hung parliament). After all, by definition the combined seats of the parties excluding the largest party (e.g. the Conservatives in 2010) would represent over 50% of total seats.

That's what I mean by "it should have been fixed long ago.

But surely it doesn't take much common sense and intelligence to understand that the single largest party has the moral and electoral mandate to have the first try at forming a coalition.

I don't see that as obvious. There should be a minimum necessary vote before anyone is elected to anything, even blackboard monitor.

In 2010, had the Conservatives and LibDems (or the Conservatives and any other party/parties that took the total seats over 50%) not been able to thrash out a coalition agreement, then of course the next step would have been to see if Labour and LibDem could form a government. But to suggest that it would have been fair to exclude the Conservatives from having the first opportunity to form a government seems to me to be either the product of very poor thinking, or of an innate anti-Conservative bias, or both. In the case of Campbell, I suspect it might be both.

Probably. Scottish politics can get passionate- often stupidly so. A bit like football.

Personally, I think that for all its flaws, the UK's FPTP system is a good system which (on the whole) produces strong governments that are representative of the public will.

Here, of course, you fall into the regional trap, of which Scottish Nationalism is the current extreme example. The system manifestly has failed to produce governments representative of the will of the Scots populace. From there we go to the "You have to take the majority will in Democracy " argument, leading inevitably to "The will of which majority?" and round we go...

Interestingly and ironically perhaps, one of FPTP's main benefits is that it usually - though not in 2010 - produces one clear "winner", which obviates the need for messy coalition politics.

That's it's strongpoint. So would simply totalling all the votes cast across the UK and dividing the available seats proportionately.

With all that in mind, I thought that Campbell's article was ill-judged, intemperate, lacking in intellectual rigour and just plain wrong in many areas. In seeking to blame voters first and the system second, he was (in my view) exposing his shortcomings in political analysis. And his closing confident prediction was, of course, totally wrong and an inept piece of analysis in itself.

Bear in mind this is a blog, not a newspaper. It's an individual personal response. There will be disappointed and angry rants. There will be jubilant whoopings and air punching.

The rise of political blogs, like the rise of political parties is a mixed blessing. A popular blog can get a message across fast, but risks turning an individual into an icon - with power but no responsibility. I think on balance it's a good thing for democracy, but it's not an unmixed blessing.

 

[Soapy Sam]

It's a constant and well-developed theme in the independence debates. The "black hole" effect of London sucking the money and the talent into its orbit. The fact that so many young Scots have to leave their native land in order to better themselves. The fact that the "London jobs" are all too often seen as superior, a promotion - from the Labour apparatchiks who jump at the chance of a Westminster seat rather than a Holyrood one, to people like Jim Naughtie and Sarah Smith who've just been parachuted in to tell the Scots what to think, even though they've been away from Scottish politics and life for many years, because they're seen as a "better class of presenter". And Gary Robertson was sacked so the BBC could afford their wages.

Can't say I've heard of either Smith or Robertson.
Bear in mind that if Scotland did become independent, London would still be there. Scotland would still "lose" people, but now they would be going abroad, just as they do now to Milan, New York , Paris, wherever. Bright, ambitious people will follow the road to London or Washington because that's what they do. It's all one road.

Scotland has been bleeding talent as well as wealth to the south-east of England since 1603. Our population was stagnant for many decades, partly as a result of this. The country ought to be able to offer its own young people a choice of equivalent opportunity without having to move to England.

I agree. The question is - "Will it?"

Now I know you don't see it that way.

No you don't. I do see it that way. But I also think if you want smart people to stay in Scotland you need to make it worth their while. You have often criticised bankers' bonuses and implied this will cease in an independent Scotland; if I'm an ambitious financial whiz kid who can stay in Edinburgh on £60k a year or move to the smoke and make £300,000, guess where I'm going.
You can't have it both ways. Either you lose ambitious people or you have to give them an incentive to stay.

London is your capital and Scotland is a region and shouldn't aspire to offer what London offers. Don't get above yourself and all that. But it's a huge part of the thinking of many people as regards the independence debate.

Rolfe.

I loathe London. Nothing on earth would induce me to live there. I turned down two jobs in my time because it would have meant moving there. I worked abroad most of my life and I have lived in Scotland all of it. You were the one who moved to England for work, not I.

 

[Rolfe]

This is utterly riveting stuff. Pray carry on guys.

And how's this for an interesting insight into "Reverend" Stu Campbell's mentality and stability (caution, contains a litany of expletives, most of them courtesy of the "Reverend"):

http://www.neo-geo.com/forums/showth...viewed!/page23

I just clicked on that. (I avoided it earlier because I thought it was a link to the obnoxious "AhDinnaeKen" blog, which really is stomach-churning.) Hey, it's the context of the "9/11 was brilliant!" comment, obviously part of some long-running gag with a mate. (As I said, rather similar to someone remarking "oh yeah and I eat babies and torture kittens too, didn't you know?")

Maybe the lurid pictures of computer-game characters (which make comic art look staid) and the angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin spat about whether a mummy is a zombie might be a wee clue that people who are not familiar with the internal sociological workings of this group of superannuated schoolboys is not in a position to pass judgement?

The fact that misrepresentation of this sort of ancient (in internet terms) history is all the No camp can find to discredit Stu Campbell says quite a lot, really. The fact that they are so desperate to discredit him at all speaks volumes as to just exactly how witless he scares them.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'm pretty certain that the point being made is that Scots with ambition will not be obliged to leave their country to fulfil it. Of course, if people still do wish to leave an independent Scotland there will be no Soviet-style border guards to stop them. I don't think we've had that scary story yet.

They don't need to go now Craig. They want to go. Anyone with a bit of get-up-and-go wants to see a bit more of the world than his home town or country. The question of interest is how an independent Scotland could manage to induce people to stay or to come home. Right now a lot of UK income comes from people like myself (until this year) and funk de fino (ditto) who work and earn abroad , but reside here, pay taxes here and make a net contribution financially from outside sources into the UK. That will continue in an independent Scotland if and only if the government makes it attractive to foreign earners to stay here. If the tax regime in Scotland became less favourable, these people (who are used to living out of a bag anyway) will simply move elsewhere.

But if Scotland becomes attractive to high earners, the already to great differential between high and low pay will worsen.


You can't have the nice, civilised, cuddly, Scando-socialist country I keep hearing about and have a place where ambitious high earners can thrive. These are incompatible views.

 

[Rolfe]

Can't say I've heard of either Smith or Robertson.

Sarah Smith is the daughter of John Smith, late leader of the Labour party in the 1990s. Her mother is in the House of Lords - a Baroness or something. She used to present stuff for Channel 4. She hasn't lived in Scotland for many years, and appears to view Scottish politics though some sort of metropolitan haze. She is also steeped from birth in the culture and ethos of the Labour party.

In the run-up to the referendum the BBC has chosen to axe Newsnight Scotland (which for all its faults was presented by people who were familiar with the Scottish political scene) and poach Smith from Channel 4 to present a vapid and one-sided magazine show which is shedding viewers like snow off a dyke in July.

If you seriously don't know who Gary Robertson is, I'm not quite sure what dimension you've been living in for the past ten years. I mean, have you never watched or listened to any political output from BBC Scotland?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

We're not talking about the same thing. At the moment, the high-flyer TV presenter wants to be in London, not Pacific Quay. The high-flying politician wants to be in Westminster, not Holyrood. "Head Office" jobs are frequently in London.

People don't leave Norway because all the top TV presenter jobs are in Stockholm.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Sarah Smith is the daughter of John Smith, late leader of the Labour party in the 1990s. Her mother is in the House of Lords - a Baroness or something. She used to present stuff for Channel 4. She hasn't lived in Scotland for many years, and appears to view Scottish politics though some sort of metropolitan haze. She is also steeped from birth in the culture and ethos of the Labour party.

In the run-up to the referendum the BBC has chosen to axe Newsnight Scotland (which for all its faults was presented by people who were familiar with the Scottish political scene) and poach Smith from Channel 4 to present a vapid and one-sided magazine show which is shedding viewers like snow off a dyke in July.

If you seriously don't know who Gary Robertson is, I'm not quite sure what dimension you've been living in for the past ten years. I mean, have you never watched or listened to any political output from BBC Scotland?

Rolfe.

Virtually none. I did not own a TV from 1983 to 2011. (I still don't , but the wife does). We generally watch the news on one or other channel in the evening. I do listen to radio, read online news and read papers as it takes my fancy.
I don't, as a habit, take note of the names of presenters on radio or other media. I have no particular interest in who they are. I've probably seen GR many times, but I would have no reason to remember his name.

ETA-By the way, where does the "Reverend" tag for SC originate?

 

[Craig B]

They don't need to go now Craig. They want to go. Anyone with a bit of get-up-and-go wants to see a bit more of the world than his home town or country.

But if Scotland becomes attractive to high earners, the already to great differential between high and low pay will worsen.


You can't have the nice, civilised, cuddly, Scando-socialist country I keep hearing about and have a place where ambitious high earners can thrive. These are incompatible views.

You mean that ambitious high earners are only ambitious to see the other people in their country living in relative poverty? People can't fulfil ambitions in Sweden or Norway? So we shouldn't be like them. Ah, but wait; if we're too different from them, the income disparities will become even greater! And we can't have that either.

 

[Rolfe]

Virtually none. I did not own a TV from 1983 to 2011. (I still don't , but the wife does). We generally watch the news on one or other channel in the evening. I do listen to radio, read online news and read papers as it takes my fancy.
I don't, as a habit, take note of the names of presenters on radio or other media. I have no particular interest in who they are. I've probably seen GR many times, but I would have no reason to remember his name.

Gary Robertson has been so ubiquitous on BBC Scotland for the past ten years I'm genuinely surprised that anyone living in Scotland doesn't at least know who he is. Mainly radio, especially GMS, but also on Newsnight Scotland on BBC2. I was familiar with his interviewing when I was living in England, and a particularly neat evisceration of a veterinary homoeopath in about 2003 sticks in my mind.

I've never been a great fan of his, and his interviewing style for nationalist and pro-independence spokesmen was aggressive, but he had his moments. His dedication and work-rate was something else though. You'd wake up to him having a go at politician X on GMS, and you'd turn him off having a go at politician Y on Newsnight Scotland when you went to your bed.

The BBC decided to parachute Naughtie and Smith in from London to tell us what to think, at vast expense. They then sacked Robertson because their budget was overspent. They've sacked Ken Macdonald from the Saturday morning slot Bateman used to present too - the one place you cuold still find relatively even-handed commentary. He has been replaced with Kezia Dugdale, Labour MSP, who is widely believed to be the egregious Scotsman troll Fifi la BonBon who disappeared in the run-up to the 2011 election.

I think they're basically having a laugh at our expense.

ETA-By the way, where does the "Reverend" tag for SC originate?

Don't really know. It's a long-time affectation. He muttered something to a journalist about some divinity training but as far as I know he's an atheist. I suspect it's something similar to Ben Goldacre's dead cat Hetty's qualifications as a naturopathic physician.

In my opinion it's something he should have ditched when he decided to take Wings professional, but did I mention "stubborn as a mule" and "bloody-minded"?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Hey, it's the context of the "9/11 was brilliant!" comment, obviously part of some long-running gag with a mate. (As I said, rather similar to someone remarking "oh yeah and I eat babies and torture kittens too, didn't you know?")

Actually no. It's a quiet day here today, wall-to-wall early summer sunshine tends to produce these. So I started at the beginning of the thread. It's quite entertaining, though I have to say not as entertaining as following a bunch of adolescent girls raging impotently at JKR after her announcement that Harry and Hermione weren't going to get together in the final book.

Steve ain't a mate. It's exaggerated hyperbole shading into flyting again. The sad thing is, only Stu knows they're flyting, and Steve thinks it's oh-so-serious.

The thread starts with someone who seems to know very little about the subject posting a long critique of an article Stu wrote for a magazine, which was heavy on childish insults and very light on fact. A number of acolytes weighed in and they all started shredding Stu's professionalism, in particular taking him for an amateurish beginner.

Stu then joins the forum to reply, and weighs in with both boots. It's another deliberately over-the-top excoriation of a bunch of kids who know so little they don't know how little they know, as it were, by the seasoned professional they've been lambasting.

http://www.neo-geo.com/forums/showt...re-reviewed!&p=2718724&viewfull=1#post2718724

A little later the editor of the magazine which commissioned the piece from Stu enters the fray.

http://www.neo-geo.com/forums/showt...re-reviewed!&p=2718808&viewfull=1#post2718808

Stuart Campbell is one of the UK's best known videogame journalists and his work is always of a very high standard. He's also (as every games magazine reader in the UK knows) is very opinionated and he likes to put his opinions across to everyone. [....]

Maybe it's a UK thing (and I don't mean to be patronising here) but Stuart's sarky style and the whole basis of what the definitive is, appears to have been lost in this particular instance. I once toyed with putting the standard (RG doesn't agree with everything STU says) at the end of each article, but assumed that readers would know that this is one individual talking and is not the collective thoughts of the magazine. Maybe we need to address this.

Now if this was a complete history of MS then some of your points could well be justified, but it isn't. Stuart is meticulous in his research and I trust him 110% with whatever he writes. He's been writing these articles now for a very long time, and no one has ever been able to recall a game he's missed or pointed out something that's factually incorrect about what he's missing.[....]

If you can't point out things that are factually incorrect then great, you've got a solid argument, but at this moment in time in does very much come across like "this article is rubbish because it doesn't agree with what are generally accepted opinions" .

Well well. Some things haven't changed in 5 years, it appears. The rest of the thread is just pimply-faced whining on most levels, but strangely compelling.

About 20 pages in the kids are still whining, and the "Steve" character remarks that Stu seems to have calmed down a little, taking that as evidence that he has realised he was in the wrong at the start. Stu returns to the thread and lays into Steve in the most hyperbolic terms he can muster, to demonstrate that he hasn't calmed down at all.

Hey chaps, Stu Campbell went in for a bit of over-the-top swearing at some idiots on a forum in 2009. Better vote No, really.



Some people really need to look up the actual definition of argumentum ad hominem.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Haha methinks the lady doth protest too much!

The point surely about Campbell is not to take literally what he wrote (careful, objective readers might have noted that in my original link to the cancer/911 rant I specifically pointed out that it was obviously written for effect....), but that serious, credible journalists - whether online or print/broadcast - simply do not engage in this sort of behaviour.

And that was the strand of my argument about Campbell. He comes across to me as an immature, sanctimonious bully, and as such I don't accord his point of view very much weight. In addition, numerous other examples (the 2010 general election reaction, the hilarious "immediate 10% drop in GDP" blunder, etc) show him to be a low-intellect political/economic analyst. I objectively believe that all these things should be taken into consideration when looking to Campbell for direction and insight in regard to the independence referendum.

But then if one is a partisan zealot who believes "they're all out to get me", the potent combination of a bunker mentality and an evangelical bias clearly leads one to a different conclusion. It was ever thus.

 

[LondonJohn]

I wondered if you might...

The issue of voting systems lies at the heart of the piece IMO. By 2010, the PR system was well established for Holyrood and I suspect what really upset Campbell was the difference in the result between a Holyrood election and a Westminster election - specifically as it affected SNP representation in London.

Well if that was at the root of his rant, then he did an excellent job of not mentioning it.....

The SNP in Scotland had received an increased mandate at Holyrood. Now, Scotland swung right back to sending a Labour dominated representative to London.

Campbell saw that as a reversion to old, unthinking habit. (As do I).

Are you saying that people were, in this instance, wrong in their voting choices? Because that sounds, erm, awfully undemocratic and totalitarian to me: "This is how you should have voted, people". In my opinion, it's extraordinarily poor thinking to criticise a democratic election outcome by blaming the way people chose to exercise their vote.

The whole unwritten constitution thing is a classic British cludge, justified by the fact it mostly works. As with the question of an acceptable minimum "yes" vote though, this really should have been fixed long ago. Did the Tories have a justifiable mandate to form a government in 2010? I don't think so and I'm as close to a Tory as you'll find north of Newcastle.

Then I think you fundamentally misunderstand what actually happened in 2010. The Conservatives did not have a mandate to form a government. And guess what? The Conservatives did not form a government. What actually happened was that, there being no overall majority in parliament, the party with the largest number of seats (the Conservatives) was invited to try to form a viable government in coalition with one or more other parties. There was never any question of there being a Conservative government. And there isn't one. There's a Con/LibDem coalition government.

That's what I mean by "it should have been fixed long ago.

I don't see that as obvious. There should be a minimum necessary vote before anyone is elected to anything, even blackboard monitor.

Probably. Scottish politics can get passionate- often stupidly so. A bit like football.
Here, of course, you fall into the regional trap, of which Scottish Nationalism is the current extreme example. The system manifestly has failed to produce governments representative of the will of the Scots populace. From there we go to the "You have to take the majority will in Democracy " argument, leading inevitably to "The will of which majority?" and round we go...

But by exactly the same token, the residents of every single large city in the UK (including London), plus huge swathes of the North East, could make exactly the same argument that they don't get governments representative of the will of their own populations. That doesn't make it an intellectually-acceptable argument. Indeed, if you take it to its logical extreme, you can say that every single person who voted for a party other than Con or LibDem in 2010 does not have a government that represents their will. It's a non-argument.

That's it's strongpoint. So would simply totalling all the votes cast across the UK and dividing the available seats proportionately.

Woah there!! You're absolutely wrong! Apportioning MPs relative to their share of the popular vote would, in fact, have produced a hung parliament in virtually every single election since 1900! Even in the strongest periods of Blair's Labour government or Thatcher's Conservative government, under PR there would have had to have been coalition government.

Bear in mind this is a blog, not a newspaper. It's an individual personal response. There will be disappointed and angry rants. There will be jubilant whoopings and air punching.

The rise of political blogs, like the rise of political parties is a mixed blessing. A popular blog can get a message across fast, but risks turning an individual into an icon - with power but no responsibility. I think on balance it's a good thing for democracy, but it's not an unmixed blessing.

Yes of course I realise all this, but I am making the argument that if someone is to be considered as a serious commentator on an issue (as many pro-independence people seem to want to elevate Campbell), then their analytical skills and their temperament deserve closer scrutiny. If Campbell were indeed merely issuing an "individual personal response", then that would be another matter. But the fact is that many are holding him up as the mouthpiece of the "Yes" campaign. If they want to do that (and it's entirely their choice to do so), then it's right and proper to hold Campbell to certain standards.

 

[LondonJohn]

I also found it funny, including the part about Northern Ireland being potato brained half wits. In no way did it come across as the writings of a racist, more of an exasperated rant at everybody and anybody.

I'm guessing that you're not a native of Northern Ireland then.......

 

[LondonJohn]

ETA-By the way, where does the "Reverend" tag for SC originate?

You might be best off asking Campbell himself for an explanation: it's his own choice of title.

Unless he clarifies things, it's certainly hard to figure out why he chooses to use that moniker. Maybe he's an ordained minister (though I'm inclined to doubt that....), or maybe he likes to think of himself as some sort of "preacher man" (perhaps he got the idea from the Dan Ashworth character in "Nathan Barley").

But I don't remember Robin Day or Evelyn Waugh or James Cook self-styling themselves "Reverend" or any other similar honorific though. Just sayin.........

 

[Soapy Sam]

Are you saying that people were, in this instance, wrong in their voting choices? Because that sounds, erm, awfully undemocratic and totalitarian to me: "This is how you should have voted, people". In my opinion, it's extraordinarily poor thinking to criticise a democratic election outcome by blaming the way people chose to exercise their vote.

I think , if we are going to stop expressing preferences, we might as well wind this thread up now.
My feeling is that people should vote for an individual they trust to do his best in post, rather than for a party representative (of whichever party). Huge areas of Scotland seem to have a habit of voting Labour for no other reason than that they are expected to vote Labour. I found it odd, that having reelected the SNP (for whom I did not vote) to Holyrood, they persisted in returning a massive Labour majority to Westminster. (41 MPs IIRC). To me that seemed odd and I felt (and still feel) it was a result of voting habit rather than any actual thought.

Then I think you fundamentally misunderstand what actually happened in 2010. The Conservatives did not have a mandate to form a government. And guess what? The Conservatives did not form a government. What actually happened was that, there being no overall majority in parliament, the party with the largest number of seats (the Conservatives) was invited to try to form a viable government in coalition with one or more other parties. There was never any question of there being a Conservative government. And there isn't one. There's a Con/LibDem coalition government.

Yes, I do understand that. I was trying to make a comparison with the question we were asking earlier about what constitutes an acceptable majority in the referendum vote.

But by exactly the same token, the residents of every single large city in the UK (including London), plus huge swathes of the North East, could make exactly the same argument that they don't get governments representative of the will of their own populations. That doesn't make it an intellectually-acceptable argument. Indeed, if you take it to its logical extreme, you can say that every single person who voted for a party other than Con or LibDem in 2010 does not have a government that represents their will. It's a non-argument.

No , it's a real argument, just not one I personally would make. It's one many nationalists do , however , take very seriously when linked to the concept of Scotland as a nation.

Woah there!! You're absolutely wrong! Apportioning MPs relative to their share of the popular vote would, in fact, have produced a hung parliament in virtually every single election since 1900! Even in the strongest periods of Blair's Labour government or Thatcher's Conservative government, under PR there would have had to have been coalition government.

Sorry, there is half a sentence there that should have been deleted. It should end after UK. Just total the votes. Winner takes all. Mind you , in a political system that only allows independent candidates, there is no possibility of a hung parliament.

Yes of course I realise all this, but I am making the argument that if someone is to be considered as a serious commentator on an issue (as many pro-independence people seem to want to elevate Campbell), then their analytical skills and their temperament deserve closer scrutiny. If Campbell were indeed merely issuing an "individual personal response", then that would be another matter. But the fact is that many are holding him up as the mouthpiece of the "Yes" campaign. If they want to do that (and it's entirely their choice to do so), then it's right and proper to hold Campbell to certain standards.

A serious commentator and a serious influence are not the same thing. Campbell's influence on the referendum campaign is significant, despite his non affiliation with "Yes Scotland" - possibly more significant than that of most politicians. What counts here is not whether or not he is accurate or right, but how many voters he sways.
(In fact , I think the issue of how effective online political blogs will be in future is potentially more interesting than the campaign . You have doubtless encountered the term "Cybernats". The fact there is no equivalent common label for their "no " equivalents is telling. This referendum is being fought as much in cyberspace as on the ground- and I don't think it is currently being won by the Unionist side.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Gary Robertson has been so ubiquitous on BBC Scotland for the past ten years I'm genuinely surprised that anyone living in Scotland doesn't at least know who he is.

As I said, the names of TV pundits just don't stick with me. I would likely recognise him if I saw him.
I met the fat lad - Taylor?? - in the old "Beanscene" at Holyrood a time or two. Easily recognised by the braces. Beyond that, I once shared a row on the London Shuttle with big Sal Magnusson and I think Jackie Bird is a stoater, but that's about it in terms of my ability to identify BBC Scotland staff.
These days I have difficulty remembering the names of politicians too, either because i'm getting senile or because they are so damn boring. Who is leader of the Labour party anyway and is that the same chap who runs the Liberals?
Naughtie's name stuck because it's unusual. Smith's...isn't. (I should confess I had never heard of her father till my wife pointed out a church in Morningside that he attended. She was shocked I had never heard of him, but I was far more au fait with American, rather than British, politics in those days.)

The BBC decided to parachute Naughtie and Smith in from London to tell us what to think, at vast expense. They then sacked Robertson because their budget was overspent. They've sacked Ken Macdonald from the Saturday morning slot Bateman used to present too - the one place you cuold still find relatively even-handed commentary. He has been replaced with Kezia Dugdale, Labour MSP, who is widely believed to be the egregious Scotsman troll Fifi la BonBon who disappeared in the run-up to the 2011 election.

I have no idea what you are referring to here.

I think they're basically having a laugh at our expense.

I suspect it's something similar to Ben Goldacre's dead cat Hetty's qualifications as a naturopathic physician.

Now I do know my dead cats. Hettie is in fact a certified professional member of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants. She's a multi talented corpse.

 

[Strawberry]

I'm guessing that you're not a native of Northern Ireland then.......

I am a native of Northern Ireland. Didn't you already know that from the exchange we had in the thread about Gerry Adams's arrest?

 

[Rolfe]

The term "cybernat" was coined by George Foulkes in 2007 or 2008, as a term of abuse. He and his side-kick Fifi la BonBon used it a bit, and because of their ability to set the tone of newspaper coverage it was taken up. (As I said, Fifi la BonBon was a horribly nasty troll on the newspaper comments pages who is believed to have been Kezia Dugdale MSP, then a researcher for Foulkes.)

I thought someone was joking when I first heard the term, because it is plainly obvious that the abuse and insults flow very predominantly from the unionist camp, with most of the independence-supporting profanity being a response to provocation. (Or it was then - the water is muddier now with some comments certainly being "false flag" affairs.)

But the press ran with it and the meme of the nasty abusive cybernat was perpetuated. It's a way of "othering" and demonsing people who discuss independence online so that their actual arguments can be dismissed without considering them. It's also a way of dissuading the undecided from seeking information online, in case they are attacked by the vile cybernat army.

Actual surveys have shown that pro-Yes posters are attacked something like three times as often as pro-No posters, and all three occasions when something has come to court the accused was a unionist. The only violence I know about was when a woman attacked a dotty old guy singing pro-independence songs with her handbag.

We've reached the stage when any challenge or disagreement with a unionist is labelled "vile abuse", and if a woman is involved it's misogyny as well. It's an article of faith that the internet is populated by these rabid slavering fiends, and all No supporters venture there at their peril. The Daily Fail ran a "cybernat watch" at the beginning of the year in which they published personal information about a bunch of perfectly ordinary people as if they were monsters from the dark side.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-bully-pulpit/

It's now de rigeur for unionist commentators to declare that they know they'll be attacked by the cybernats for saying this, but... Rowling did it. Then it's just assumed that has happened. They're now saying Alex Salmond is personally directing this non-existent army.

Stu Campbell runs a wildly popular and successful blog, read by a very large number of people. You meet some interesting characters on the comments threads, including several JREF members. That the only things people can find to smear him with are some hyperbolic comments on a gaming forum five years ago, is actually quite impressive.



I think some people need to get over themselves.

ETA: If you want an example of the No side online, try this. Warning, naughty words not being used for hyperbolic effect.

https://twitter.com/TheRealMcGowan/status/478634065726558208

If there's anything this bad directed against the unionist side, I've not seen it.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I think Jackie Bird is a stoater,

Get professional help. Srsly.

Rolfe.