The less-deserving pro-independence website

Wings Over Scotland


Data mining #5

Posted on August 10, 2013 by

A series of super-short snippets from our splendid survey.

————————————————————————————————

VOTERS WHO EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON MEDIA BIAS

Men: 60%
Women: 37%

————————————————————————————————

Print Friendly

112 to “Data mining #5”

  1. handclapping says:

    Generalisation. Its not that women aren’t critical, its that they don’t criticise

  2. Doug Daniel says:

    I don’t see Stu making that generalisation, merely highlighting a statistic. The reasoning for the huge gap could be a couple of things.
     
    However, it could explain why women are currently less likely to support independence. It could also mean that it’s not the message itself that is the problem – it’s the way the message is put out there. If we’re relying on the media to get people involved in the debate, then we’re always going to miss people who don’t take any notice of the media.

  3. Juteman says:

    Maybe it’s because men are genetically wired to spot threats to their ‘truth’, when getting someone wrong was terminal?
    Going back to the old hunter/gatherer thing.
    Just rambling here.

  4. steven luby says:

    @handclapping………….lucky you (-: odd this one. mostly woman made a choice and they percieve baisse. but then again,the mind of a woman has the god given right to change their min,always,regardless of timing(-:  ! and b4 become subjected(-; agree with this right,I know my personnal place on the food chain!

  5. Red squirrel says:

    Simply reflects numbers paying attention to the debate just now but will be very significant given the high percentage of female don’t knows. With exception of Nicola Sturgeon, profile of both campaigns heavy on the middle aged white male which doesn’t appear convincing to women voters. Mind you, that’s maybe less to do with the demographic and more to do with the scunners involved.

  6. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    I am going to set the cat amongst the pigeons here.

    I live in France and Mrs Panda who is French is more than just interested in  French politics. Many of her female friends are too and they are ready, and at short notice, to take to streets in a Manif, if they think the Government needs warned. It is a French tradition dating from the Revolution days and the Gendarmes back off unless violence or anarchy emerges.

    The French TV have several political programmes on each night on different channels and some are particularly slanted towards younger voters (under 35) as they take the piss out of politicians who queue up to be on the programme and be questioned, without the questions being vetted.

    One programme le Petit Journal has a very Spitting Image set of puppets including one which is an image of one of the political commentators on the programme who poses direct questions and sarcastic comment to the guests. Of course it is the puppet who is speaking and not the actual journalist and, as I said the questioning / opinionating can be quite acerbic.

    In short, I believe, it is not that women are per se less likely to be engaged politically it reflects a UK culture / history  specific reason.

  7. scottish_skier says:

    Rev, might be worth you asking if Anthony Wells at UK polling report is interested in the poll data.
     
     

  8. Juteman says:

    OT.
    I’ve enjoying an afternoon of watching the World Championships in Moscow, whilst having a beer or two.
    Mo Farrah was superb, and after seeing him presented with his medal, i’m now voting No.

  9. Celyn says:

    It’s worrying, though.  Are there really so many women failing to exercise any critical faculty when reading/watching news coverage?    If so, that really is scary and I wish I knew how to change that.
    Are there fewer women paying attention to news and current affairs?  Surely not.  Well, I hope not.

  10. Jiggsbro says:

    What are the other 3%?

  11. scottish_skier says:

    are there really so many women failing to exercise any critical faculty when reading/watching news coverage?   

    The finding suggests women are not reading/watching the news; i.e. much fewer are able to offer an opinion. Explains the much higher DK’s amongst females.

    I’ve met plenty of folk who are not big followers of politics/the news who have told me ‘I plan to have a good look/think as I want to make an informed decision but I’ve just not got around to it yet’.

    They’ve still a year+ to do it. Give them time.

  12. Juteman says:

    I know lots of folk, men and women, that have never voted,
    They simply aren’t interested, and can’t or won’t understand the relevance of politics to their daily lives.
    I’ve tried to engage my daughters friends in discussing the referendum, and the ignorance is shocking.

  13. tornface says:

    My sister has never voted, she feels she isn’t informed enough to make a decision and doesn’t care anyway. However I’ve got her following Cats for Independence on FB, so maybe it’ll sink in 😉

  14. alex taylor says:

    Juteman
    Remember a fantastic commentary early in Mo Farrah’s career as he crossed the line as a winner and was described as the first non African to win that event in its history.
    UK blinkers at their best.
     

  15. Yesitis says:

    There are some people who refuse to see the wood for the trees. It may be because the trees are simply horrid, or maybe they are jealous, or bitter, or have an agenda…
     
    This one has a fine, familiar crew manning it`s stations:
    https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/366233377105395717

  16. Morag says:

    Ooh, I shouldn’t have clicked on that!  Was that really our Long******r saying, regarding the independence debate being too long, “It is way too long. I’m just hoping my indifference about the whole thing goes away.”  Goodness, I believe it was.

    Indifference fail, big time. I’m indifferent to football, but I manage to ignore it quite easily except when Stu posts about it. I don’t blog and tweet incessantly about it.

  17. Juteman says:

    Is Hothersall really the persona he tweets as, or is that just a façade for something even worse?
    Is he looking for an authoritarian father figure that tells him what to do/think?

  18. Jimbo says:

    This one has a fine, familiar crew manning it`s stations:https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/366233377105395717
     
    Why does DH have a flower in his hair?

  19. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    and Burdzeye is there with him too. I think the Rev and she used to blog together with several others on another site.

  20. Morag says:

    Burdzeye is a pain in the neck, but I just stay away from her blog.  No sense in fighting among ourselves.

  21. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “and Burdzeye is there with him too. I think the Rev and she used to blog together with several others on another site.”

    Nah, I just had one post on Better Nation once.

  22. gman says:

    I have been following some twittering this eve and see that there has been some ‘play the man’ jibes aimed towards the Rev. But the strange thing that some of it was coming from SNP members. Pretty astonishing seeing we are all on the same side, no? I don’t know the history. Maybe a bit of jealousy with the revs success here in terms of interesting articles, ever increasing visitors and exposure, crowd funding and now serious polling etc? I get the impression they think the debate would be better without WoS and also NNS. I think they believe a more softer approach would ‘win’ journalists around and that dubious reporting, bias and propaganda should not be called out. This is mental.
     
    I expect the Yes campaign to be abroad church, with all sorts of different things going one with one common goal, and that target should be the focus rather than criticising other Yes campaigners.
     
    So please keep it up Rev! Highlight the facts, the mis-information, the omissions and spread a positive message.
    Cheers

  23. Yesitis says:

    Gman
     
    Yes, there seems to be a concerted effort to build a “We hate Rev Stu – he is a nasty hatemonger” consensus over on Twitter. A few pro-independence type are joining in. Rev probably knows who they are already – the wettest of the wetnats, the friends of Euan McColm.

    Such a coincidence this is happening so shortly after the Panelbase poll results.

  24. tornface says:

    Wet Nats, I think they’re the most dangerous of all

  25. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    remember Calum Cashley?
    http://calumcashley.blogspot.fr/
    I can’t find the actual piece but; he had a go at CyberNats and by more than a little he meant us.
    He didn’t do that on his own.
    I think we are the Awkward Squad in this referendum.
    I quite that epithet and after a YES vote I will continue to criticise the incumbent Scottish Government. They need to be held to account no less than any other. In fact their upbeat positive programme of electioneering must not become cynically abandoned after 2014, like Obama did in the US.

  26. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Burdzeye is a pain in the neck, but I just stay away from her blog. No sense in fighting among ourselves.”

    Yep. I just give her a wide berth too, that’s the first thing I’ve said to her in about a year. But it was an extraordinary, bizarre accusation. Sometimes I rub my eyes a bit and think “How on Earth does someone on our side hate me so much, with so little reason, that she’d try to damage the whole Yes campaign?”

    Watching her and that insufferable, pious little prick Mackenzie trying to undermine a professional poll stuffed with incredibly useful data just to get at me is mindboggling.

  27. Jiggsbro says:

    Such a coincidence this is happening so shortly after the Panelbase poll results.
     
    They do represent a particularly challenging ball, hence the two-footed tackle on Twitter.

  28. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Overwhelming sense of ego and some lack of empathy never mind understanding for the male condition?

  29. tornface says:

    @Bugger (the Panda)
    Only plausible explanation?

  30. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Rev Stu
     
    Who and when concocted the misogynist epithet for you?

  31. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Tornface
    If you have another one please feel free to expound.

  32. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Who and when concocted the misogynist epithet for you?”

    So far as I can remember, Higgins was the first.

  33. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Mmm

  34. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Overwhelming sense of ego and some lack of empathy never mind understanding for the male condition?”

    I definitely get the feeling all of that is accurate. I also get the sense – and this could be totally wrong – that the politics stuff is her whole social life, and she’d rather fuck up the referendum than not be pally with the likes of Hothersall any more.

  35. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    I had a minor exchange with her and just stopped reading what she did.
    It was as though she was a capped volcano looking for a weak spot from which to erupt.

  36. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “It was as though she was a capped volcano looking for a weak spot from which to erupt.”

    She’s got an absolute hair trigger for being disagreed with in even the mildest, nicest way.

  37. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Since we are gossiping here, maybe she would make a good replacement for BM in BT?

    The process is the reason, not necessarily the result rather than the end justifies the means.

  38. kininvie says:

    Ach, we all have egos. Some are larger than others. But if we lose because we can’t stop ourselves from forming factions, than we are merely repeating a very ancient Scottish habit which has damaged us more often in the past than I care to think.

  39. Morag says:

    She’s got an absolute hair trigger for being disagreed with in even the mildest, nicest way.
     
    Ooh, tell me about it!  I had a bit of a go at her for a throwaway comment in one of her pieces, where she casually implied that “organic” produce was healthier and all-round good in every possible way.  This is one of my slightly short fuses for a number of reasons I won’t bore you with.  She started posting stuff I’m pretty sure was made up, but of course since it was all personal anecdote I couldn’t disprove it.

    However, she did interact, and she did leave my comments intact, so I really shouldn’t carp.

  40. Morag says:

    The bit that took me to the fair this evening on Twitter was the bit where she sweetly inquired about whether you had audited accounts of the £6,000 poll fundraiser expenditure.  For goodness sake!

    When you had the big £30,000 fundraiser, which was explicitly about giving you an income so that you could run this blog, I was very much aware that there was no come-back.  If you had chosen to take the money then post something banal every other day for the next year, then more fool me for being taken in.  But I made a judgement that you were both sincere and enthusiastic, and went with it.

    If this isn’t running on trust, it doesn’t deserve to run at all.  Getting full money’s worth in my opinion, and talk of audited account is downright insulting to everyone.

  41. cynicalHighlander says:

    Brit Nat {Loyalist): whether working,out off work or retired then one has free reign as the MSM will cover for you.
     
    Scot Nat: that free reign is not allowed if one is working especially in the public sector and they also believe that the British Government will play fair in the event of a no vote.  IMO
    Some of us are more committed than others as we can envisage the future if we fail in this opportunity.

    Pot kettle black to those who complain about NNS.

  42. Alba4Eva says:

    OT.  I have just finished watching this documentary on Hugo Chavez and due to so many similarities that I as a strong advocate of Scottish Independence have with this and our situation here, just had to post it.   
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vBlV5TUI64
    Special note must be made of the similarities in respect to the presence of partisan establishment controlled Media, the balance of socialism v’s aggressive capitalism and the use of a countries natural resources for the benefit of the people.
    Hope you watch and enjoy… if you have not seen this already.

  43. cynicalHighlander says:

    @Alba4Eva
     
    Corporate capitalism brought in by Reagan and Thatcher instigated by the Chicago Boys under the direction of Freidman.

  44. Jimbo says:

    “…she sweetly inquired about whether you had audited accounts of the £6,000 poll fundraiser expenditure.”
     
    I don’t twitter so am unable to follow this thread, but if some-one is asking for Stu to account for how he spent the money donated to fund the poll, I think that is a bit cheeky. My small donation was unconditional and I was of the opinion that if it was not needed to help fund the poll then it would, and could, be used as Stu saw fit. I’m pretty sure everyone else who donated would be of the same mind.

  45. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Jimbo
     
    It is more than cheeky, it is a smear to imply that Stu is pilfering the money we gave him, without actually saying that he is, which would a Libel in England and a Defamation in Scotland if it were not true.

    maybe she has been hanging around spin doctors and other paid liars a bit too much.

  46. ianbrotherhood says:

    Just back from a very nice wee garden party. Got talking to a BBC producer who I haven’t met since 2000: staff morale is ‘rock-bottom’; short-term contracts are now the norm (with more staff declining to renew when offered another); the NUJ is ‘worse than useless’ at reflecting staff concerns; the atmosphere and conditions are getting steadily worse. 

  47. sneddon says:

    I’m truely looking forward to hearing her at the March and Rally in September.  Will she stick to the point or throw in a snide one about  the rev. e.g. ‘references to ‘the enemy within’  She acts like she’s a snout for the spooks  in terms of undermining her own side. 

  48. Morag says:

    I don’t twitter so am unable to follow this thread, but if some-one is asking for Stu to account for how he spent the money donated to fund the poll, I think that is a bit cheeky. My small donation was unconditional and I was of the opinion that if it was not needed to help fund the poll then it would, and could, be used as Stu saw fit. I’m pretty sure everyone else who donated would be of the same mind.
     
    I don’t Twitter either, but I was following Stu’s Twitter feed from the link in the side-bar this afternoon and saw the exchange.  It was mainly Stu against Hothersall and some other up-themselves unionists, but Kate jumped in to ask about audited accounts for the £6,000 fundraiser.  As far as I could see, Stu ignored her.

    Yes, I thought it was a smear.  And uncalled-for, as we already raised £30,000 for Stu to spend on pot noodles and rent and pints down the pub and even a week in the Med if that’s what it takes to keep him sane for this year.  I thought it was pretty nasty, frankly.

  49. Vronsky says:

    Unionists the length and breadth of the country are hiding under their beds tonight. Braveheart is on.

  50. scottish_skier says:

    Yes, I thought it was a smear.  And uncalled-for, as we already raised £30,000 for Stu to spend on pot noodles and rent and pints down the pub and even a week in the Med if that’s what it takes to keep him sane for this year.  I thought it was pretty nasty, frankly.
    I have no problem funding Stu’s bog roll and toilet cleaner.
    Although I do hope he’s spent my donation specifically on a pint or two rather than the above.
    🙂

  51. Marcia says:

    Jibbo
    I think it is a case of envy. Some political sites have thrived while others have not and stagnated or vanished. In the main I do like reading facts and not opinions. The  small club of  chattering bloggers that she belongs to have all had their noses put out of joint by the success of WoS.

  52. Jiggsbro says:

    I was of the opinion that if it was not needed to help fund the poll then it would, and could, be used as Stu saw fit
     
    I assumed he would take any spare to the poker table and win enough to fund TV ads.

  53. Morag says:

    Some political sites have thrived while others have not and stagnated or vanished.

    I don’t quite know why it happened, except that Stu does write extremely well.  Peter Bell/Electric Hermit tried very hard to get a forum off the ground about 18 months ago, and I tried to support him, but nobody came and he was basically trolled to death.  I couldn’t see that he’d done anything wrong.

    About that time I was reading a wide range of blogs and posting on a few of them, but WoS soon began to stand out as the best place to be.  Rather a lot of other people seem to be of the same opinion.  It’s probably that simple.

    Stu did take a huge risk with the big fundraiser.  He could have ended up with £3.25 and been utterly humiliated.  But it worked, and as you say some people may be a bit jealous.

  54. Doug says:

    Anent the Burd
     
    the drive to independence is arguably the most important event in all of our lifetimes and the outcome vital to all our wellbeings. She is very much on record as a ‘yes’ supporter. She should be putting her grudge against Stu to one side as they are both on the same team!
     
    Even if Stu was all that she says he is (I would disagree utterly), the rational thing would be to hold her nose, use the best/most useful parts of his work to aid the cause (The ‘he may be a bastard but he’s our bastard’ idea). The impression given is that she would rather aid the opposition than use Stu’s prodigious work (especially a professional poll which has data that is dynamite under the No team) – shameful and wrongheaded. 

  55. Morag says:

    While we’re on the subject of Stu’s general awesomeness, I’d like to know where the poll questions came from.  I thought they were fairly inspired.  Especially after the mince that was being suggested on the fundraising threads.  Did he devise these by himself?  Did he have them in mind before the fundraising started, or were they worked out just before the poll went live?
     
    (To counter this, regarding a recent Tweet, I’d like to know if he actually read the recent report of the Hillsborough Inquiry, and if he has, have a fight with him about it, but that’s probably too far off topic even for this thread.)

  56. Adrian B says:

    I didn’t know that Electric Hermit was Peter Bell! You learn something every day. He was perhaps a little bit too get up and go – not many took him seriously in the comments. Had some interesting thoughts though.
     

  57. Morag says:

    I hoped his forum might have taken off, but there were only a handful of serious posters, and a constant stream of disruptive trolls.  He had to close it out of sheer self defence.

  58. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Adrian B, Morag et al
     
    Peter Bell’s invective is a joy to read.

  59. Joybell says:

    Not just a bit jealous, Morag, the Green-eyed Monster is alive and well.  Might even be friends with the Space Monster.

  60. cynicalHighlander says:

    Electric Hermit had his wires crossed on BWB, Peter is a different character surely.

  61. Doug says:

    Ultimately, the likes of Stu are wonderful resources (as well as entertaining). The digging up of hard facts to disprove lies and highlight that which the No squad want to hide is a mammoth task and a joy to behold. It is no shock they want to vilify him and make him look bad.  He is demonstrably a threat to their propaganda.
     
    i just cannot forgive the wetnats joining in – pricks.

  62. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Kate jumped in to ask about audited accounts for the £6,000 fundraiser. As far as I could see, Stu ignored her.”

    Actually, I replied noting that our fundraising was done through an independent, transparent third party.

    I genuinely have no idea what point she was trying to make with the “audited, verified” comment. In context it APPEARED to be scepticism about whether we’d raised the money at all, but that’s so stupid it makes no sense. Is she suggesting that the fundraiser failed, we only raised 20p and I spent over £4000 of my own money on the poll? Christ knows. Obviously she didn’t grace us with an explanation, so it’ll probably remain a mystery.

  63. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “(To counter this, regarding a recent Tweet, I’d like to know if he actually read the recent report of the Hillsborough Inquiry, and if he has, have a fight with him about it, but that’s probably too far off topic even for this thread.)”

    Yes, I read the report. I wrote an extensive piece on my personal blog explaining my view. If you want to take it to Quarantine I’ll have a go, but I don’t have a vast amount of time to devote to debating it.

  64. Jimbo says:

    Morag,
     
    I’ve read many of Peter Bell’s blogs and thoroughly enjoyed them. Unfortunately, due to work commitments, I don’t have the time to read and support all of the pro-indy sites. I have to be selective and nowadays mainly stick to WoS. When I have the time I sometimes post on Telegraph, Guardian Huff-post etc (I gave up on Scotsman/Herald ages ago) using a different moniker but starting to find those places tiresome. Sorry to hear Peter Bell didn’t get the support he deserved.

  65. Morag says:

    Yes, I read the report. I wrote an extensive piece on my personal blog explaining my view. If you want to take it to Quarantine I’ll have a go, but I don’t have a vast amount of time to devote to debating it.

    Nah, it’s not worth the time.  Just chalk me up as someone else who disagrees with you.  At least at the moment, not having read the piece you wrote.  And I’d put the likelihood of my changing my mind fairly low at that.

  66. Vronsky says:

    I don’t know what Higgins says about anything and don’t put myself to any trouble to find out. I stopped contributing to Bella when they brought her on to their editorial team.  They’ll be hiring Brian Wilson next.  Kate is a pathological approval seeker. There’s no help for them.

  67. Morag says:

    In context it APPEARED to be scepticism about whether we’d raised the money at all, but that’s so stupid it makes no sense.
     
    I never thought of it that way, because as you say it makes no sense at all.  I just thought it was an unwarranted and extraordinarily hostile thing to say.

  68. Morag says:

    Electric Hermit had his wires crossed on BWB, Peter is a different character surely.
     
    He was posting under both names at one point, but then seemed to decide to go with his own name and leave the handle behind.  The forum seemed to be in part a way to allow comments on the closed BWB articles.  He was attacked by some trolls who were defaming him in the Electric Hermit persona, so perhaps that’s why he abandoned it.

    If I’m wrong about this I’m sure he will correct me, but as I recall he wasn’t making any secret about it.  After the forum folded he started the Scoop-it page, which I follow.

  69. Morag says:

    Nah, it’s not worth the time.  Just chalk me up as someone else who disagrees with you.  At least at the moment, not having read the piece you wrote.  And I’d put the likelihood of my changing my mind fairly low at that.
     
    OK, found the article, read it.  I disagree.  I think it’s simplistic and unrealistic.  However, other people seem to have tried to put these points and failed, so I don’t reckon much on my chances of success.  Let’s agree to disagree.

  70. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “I’d like to know where the poll questions came from”

    Some were inspired by suggestions in the comments thread, most were off the top of my head. I worked them out after we flew past the target and I had an idea of how many we could afford.

  71. ianbrotherhood says:

    Higgins’ remark was out of order.
     
    It’s offensive to all who contribute to this, and other sites – including BellaC – and do so without demanding ‘accountancy’.
     
    An apology is due.

  72. Jimbo says:

    After the forum folded he started the Scoop-it page, which I follow.
     
    Got a link please, Morag?

  73. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “An apology is due.”

    I won’t be waiting by my inbox.

    Did she ever write anything for Bella again after that piece on how all other independence supporters were shit except her?

  74. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Got a link please, Morag?”

    It’s on our links bar under “Referendum 2014”. DOESN’T – oh what’s the use?

  75. Morag says:

    Some were inspired by suggestions in the comments thread, most were off the top of my head. I worked them out after we flew past the target and I had an idea of how many we could afford.
     
    Well, kudos.

  76. Jimbo says:

    It’s on our links bar under “Referendum 2014?
     
    Thank you, Stu. 

  77. Morag says:

    that piece on how all other independence supporters were shit except her?
     
    A search trawled up maybe eight articles, some before she joined the editorial team.  The most recent was in May.  I’m not sure which one you’re referring to.  I skimmed a few but they were boring and worthy and frankly tl;dr.

  78. Doug Daniel says:

    Vronsky: “Kate is a pathological approval seeker. There’s no help for them.”
     
    That’s it in a nutshell, really. A lot of people spend their time on the internet trying to make sure they say the “right” things, in order to gain approval by people they don’t know. It’s the main reason for a lot of the faux outrage you get on Twitter, as people line up to show everyone else how terribly outraged they are. Although in the case of Kate vs Stu, she’s not faux outraged, she’s genuinely outraged – mainly, I suspect, because she’s used to people backing down *completely* as soon as they have the “misogynist” card used on them, but that only works when the person you’re using it on is also an approval seeker, as they don’t want to be ostracised from whatever little clique they’ve gotten into.
     
    Of course, Stu doesn’t back down, and the usual punishment for those who don’t back down (being ostracised from the group) hasn’t happened either, because Stu’s profile in the online indy circles has grown and grown (how often do BetterNation or BurdzEyeView get a mention in a YesScotland blog?) As a result, folk like Kate hate him more and more, a bit like in a movie when the main protagonist sees his rival (who wronged him somehow) getting increasing adulation from people, while he’s sitting there saying “IF ONLY THEY KNEW WHAT I KNEW…” And that’s what’s happening when people like Hothersall or James Mac tweet the one solitary piece of “evidence” they have against Stu, desperately trying to get ALL TEH TWITTERZ to see the truth, that Stu is the Baddie and they’re the Goodies.
     
    (And they do so without even realising the self-evident ridiculousness of tweeting a year-old picture which even says “4 YEARS AGO” on it, as if we’re supposed to believe that someone as rampantly homophobic and misogynist as we’re meant to believe Stu is would be so careful to hide it that the only piece of evidence would be from five years ago.)
     
    Of course, it wouldn’t be a massive problem if it was simply the one or two people Stu has had fall-outs with that did all this, but then you get the ones who are desperate to be “in” with them, who then decide to take the same “yeah, Wings is a nasty blog written by a nasty person” attitude to gain approval from the “right” people. There are even people who regularly retweet Wings links and even post comments here, who I’ll then see feeling the need to say “oh I don’t agree with everything he says” or whatever, as if it’s unusual to not agree with everything a person says (the Metal Gear series is ace, no matter what you say Stu).
     
    It’s one thing slagging Stu off and trying to make everyone think he’s the devil incarnate; however, it’s quite another to be actively looking for ways to discredit a poll conducted by a professional polling company – used by mainstream media organisations – just because of who commissioned it (oh and don’t even bother to consider that it was ordinary members of the public who funded it). That crosses the line between “disagreements between members of the same team” and “scoring an own goal on purpose because you think the goalie is a dick.” Critics of Stu claim Wings is harmful to the independence cause, but I don’t recall Stu ever trying to sabotage something another site did just because of personal grievances.

  79. Doug Daniel says:

    Morag – “A search trawled up maybe eight articles, some before she joined the editorial team.  The most recent was in May.  I’m not sure which one you’re referring to.  I skimmed a few but they were boring and worthy and frankly tl;dr.”
     
    The one Stu’s referring to was her shock revelation that – despite decades of membership of the SNP – she is Not A Nationalist, and will presumably not be watching Braveheart on TV just now: http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/01/27/the-art-of-the-possible/
     
    Seems she’s had one more article since then, and was in a For A’ That podcast, both in February. Nothing since. I think the May one you’re referring to was May 2011 (unless you did a better search then me!)

  80. dee says:

    Hi folks
          Can I say that there is a lot of dirty washing hanging out on this page, I don’t know what you are all getting upset about but I sincerely hope you sort it out tonight, because it is taking the shine right off of all the hard work you have put into this poll.
          From a concerned fellow pro nationalist.

  81. pmcrek says:

    IMO lots of people on twitter should try Hello Kitty Indy Twitter Adventure…

  82. Erchie says:

    The thing that put me off Kate Higgins, apart from the misogynist crap, over Rev Stu gliding women to the same standard as he holds men, was her pulling a ‘well I’ve been in the SNP longer hush you so I get to have an opinion and you don’t” which is silly as well as offensive

  83. Braco says:

    Morag,
    it was her introductory article as a newly appointed editor of Bella.
     
    The article was pretty much as The Rev described but the posts were an epic refusal by the then Bella readership. It was great fun and very serious at the same time!
     
    Bella, to my mind, has never quite recovered. If you read the posts, most were happy to have her contribute articles under her own name (easy to avoid) but were outraged at the idea that she would and could commission articles and even worse, edit them before  publishing under the Bella banner.
     
    This was feared as the invisible hand of self censorship, and almost impossible to rectify by criticism of any given article. Were we justified in our fears? That’s just a personal call.
     
    Anyway, Bella has steadily slipped down, from my number 1, to just another once a monther, in order to cull the odd land reform article from, if you are lucky. Truthfully, more upsetting than it’s worth me giving time to.
     
    http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/01/27/the-art-of-the-possible/ 
     
    Rev, I know you don’t need any advice on this but for what it’s worth, just do what you do and fuck em!
     

  84. Patrick Roden says:

    I made a good sized contribution to the poll and was happy to do so. I have never even considered the need for receipts, or that I would then have a say in how the money would be spent.
    The contributions are made in good faith, believing that the Rev has the same political ambition as myself and will use the money as he sees fit, to ensure the ‘Wings’ site contributes to this ambition.
     
    Simples 😉

  85. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    No one has commented on any of the recent threads that James Kelly of the SCOT goes POP! blog has analysed some of the raw data from the WoS poll and decided that the Yes/No is now 34/36.
    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/
    I Haven’t a clue how he did it but, I am up for believing it anyway.

  86. naebd says:

    “Bugger”, the stat is from this article on the Wings over Scotland pro-independence website:
    http://wingsoverscotland.com/looking-ahead/

  87. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    naebd
    I missed that somehow, thought it was JK who worked that out.
     
    Can you tell me in which thread it is please?
     
    Ta.

  88. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Ah, I see that you gave me the link to the thread.
    Morning coffee works wonders.
    Apologies

  89. G. Campbell says:

    The Scottish Mail on Sunday

    SNP monster on the wing

    “WINGS Over Scotland is not some Paul McCartney outfit with mullets, platform soles and a pipe band but a supposedly serious, non-party-political website backing independence. So, having interviewed 1,000 Scots for its Panelbase survey, what vital facts did it uncover? That Scots are less scared of space monsters than of a Tory Government. Curiously, the survey did not ask more crucial questions such as the one we will be asked next year – essentially ‘Do you want Scotland to leave the UK and go independent with the SNP in charge?’ Since Alex Salmond, unlike the space monsters, now looms large on the horizon, many Scots may see him as the more scary prospect.”

  90. bunter says:

    Usually look forward to Sunday Herald indy stories but disappointed today, almost nothing. Must be a slow day with an absence of scares and poll results the reason.

  91. Famous15 says:

    Could someone ask the Mail on Sunday when they got an agreement to their new question?

  92. G. Campbell says:

    The “SNP monster on the wing” paragraph I posted earlier appears in the Black Dog column.  Who he/she?

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m59bCzJWW6g/UgdEnOXqhYI/AAAAAAAAAO4/1G_QSFwMJts/s1600/blackdog.jpg

    Graham Grant @GrahamGGrant
    (Home Affairs Editor, Scottish Daily Mail)
    Interesting that some online political bloggers hide behind aliases.Don’t they have courage of their convictions?
    https://twitter.com/GrahamGGrant/status/366132586524852225

    Graham Grant @GrahamGGrant 
    Intellectual cowardice and playground verbal thuggery of cybernats,especially anonymous ones,are deeply telling.
    https://twitter.com/GrahamGGrant/status/366340253327425536

    Up only the Mail could make it.

  93. sneddon says:

    Mail on Sunday usual pile of excrement.  I agree with the earlier post about enjoying Peter Bell’s comments on the Scoop it Referndum 2014 page.  One of my daily ‘must visit’ pages it has to be said.
    Scottish political  MSM media,  a pile of ponces in a jam sandwich

  94. Famous15 says:

    Re Mail on Sunday. I had a strange déjà vu moment with regard to the attack on WOS and then the M Gandhi quote flashed before my eyes. Oor Rev knows all about Revelations so ye ken noo!

  95. SCED300 says:

    the survey did not ask more crucial questions such as the one we will be asked next year – essentially ‘Do you want Scotland to leave the UK and go independent with the SNP in charge?’
    A piece of deliberate misdirection, and nonsense, as that is not the question being asked, and of course there would be no Independence Question without the SNP.

    I would hope people would be looking at that article and thinking, this is gibberish. Fond hope, though you never know.

  96. Marcia says:

    The Mail on Sunday article may direct some of their readers here for the first time. If you are a new reader, welcome.

  97. G. Campbell says:

    How bonkers is Scotland on Sunday. This bonkers.

    Scottish independence productions ban at EIF 2014

    “By steering clear of politically motivated productions, Mills will avoid a repeat of the controversy stirred up three years ago over the National Theatre of Scotland drama Caledonia, seen by some as having Nationalist undertones.”

    http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts/news/scottish-independence-productions-ban-at-eif-2014-1-3040283

    That’ll be the Caledonia which was written by well-known Unionist Alistair Beaton and which was derided by many as being anti-independence propaganda.

    “Caledonia is a story of greed, euphoria and mass delusion. It is the story of a small, poor country mistaking itself for a place that is both big and rich. It is an ancient story for modern times.”

    http://2010.eif.co.uk/caledonia

    “The SNP have become dishonest and shifty. They changed their position on NATO for electoral gain. We are fighting for values within the United Kingdom. In a modern world an independent Scotland makes no sense.”

    http://www.standrewsradio.com/?q=news/1501/st-andrews-rejects-scottish-independence

  98. Adrian B says:

    Newsnet covers the poll and links to the individual pieces here.
     
    http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/7844-the-panelbase-poll-for-wings-over-scotland

  99. SCED300 says:

    “Cybernat” and “Nat trollery”. Not so long ago politicians and journalists were praising the use of social media and the internet, as a great instrument in the expression of democracy( e.g in North Africa and Middle East) , and critising China for trying to control online discussions.
    In their own back yard, not a good thing, so out come the phrases and words to denigrate; not counter arguments or analysis of the content. The cosy control of the agenda, where every one should know their place, is not there anymore.

  100. dee says:

    Listening to the “Headline” programme on BBC Radio Scotland this morning. Four guests plus the presenter and there is not an indy leaning thought between the lot of them.  Do the BBC in Scotland think that the Scottish people don’t notice this unashamed brazen bias that comes out of Pacific Quay. Yet more money down the drain, They really do know how to spend OUR money in a fair and balanced way don’t they. This programme is another 5-0 score line towards the unionist cause.

  101. SCED300 says:

    At St Andrews University, you know, the Scots do a fine job; cleaning the Residences, serving in the dinner hall and shops, and good janitors. Can’t understand anything they say, but sure they mean well.

  102. gordoz says:

    Have to say folks – what do you expect for the press & media in Scotland; other than little or no comment about panel base poll or trying to smear supporters of YES campaign.
    They will have infiltrated just about everything by now.
    Its only the start of this and it will get much, much worse. They have the reigns but we still have the streets; and marches / protests / demonstrations are where its at for coverage – get the kids out there. They cant ignore the public forever.
    Either we get journalists to confirm intervention, strong arming editorial decisions via a seperate poll or article or we get just as ‘clever’ with coverage.

  103. Robert Kerr says:

    Oh yes, they will have infiltrated everything. Some “sleepers” for a very long time. 
    Hail Alba

  104. Morag says:

    I think the May one you’re referring to was May 2011 (unless you did a better search then me!)
     
    I checked again, and there is one dated May 2013.

    http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/05/06/mayday/

  105. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Morag
    Get out, get some sun and have a glass of vino.
     
    BIG smiley thingy.
     
    BtP

  106. Morag says:

    Bugger, you just buggered up me expanding on the info in that post.  Now I have to do it all again.

  107. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    Morag
     
    Buggered up my expansion it is, Morag.

  108. Morag says:

    27th January, Kate joins the editorial board.

    http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/01/27/the-art-of-the-possible/

    24th February, “Scotland 2014: Rock the vote?”

    http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/02/24/scotland-2014-rock-the-vote/

    3rd March, “Broken Britain”

    http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/03/03/broken-britain/

    26th March, “Learned Helplessness”

    http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/03/26/learned-helplessness/

    6th May, “Mayday”

    http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/05/06/mayday/

    That seems to be the sum total of her contributions since joining the board.

    I used to read her blog, but the articles just don’t do it for me.  Worthy, boring, and too long.  Also, this “I’ve been in the SNP longer than you have so my opinion counts and yours doesn’t” thing is just boring.

    More power to her elbow if she is making advances within the constituency that likes her stuff, but I find more interesting things to read elsewhere these days.

  109. Morag says:

    Buggered up my expansion it is, Morag.

    No doubt.  If your brain is in gear now, good luck to it.  Mine isn’t.  🙂

    ETA: I see Akismet has caught my expansion in the spam filter due to its containing five links. No doubt it will be along shortly.

  110. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    A glass of red or Bolly in the left hand and type with the right.
    Simple
    You don’t do cybernat (re)unions do you?
    BtP

  111. Adrian B says:

    @ Morag,
     
    For future reference I think up to four links in a single comment gets through Askimet fine. 

  112. Morag says:

    Yeah, I could have left out one of the links, but I wasn’t really thinking about it.  It’s not a comment that it’s important people see at once, just a record of what Kate has had published in Bella since she “joined the board” in January – four articles, the most recent in May this year.  Stu will OK it when he gets back from lunch.



Comment - new users please read this page first for commenting rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use the live preview box. Include paragraph breaks or I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




↑ Top