The Ephialtes Platoon
Try as we might, we’re only one small website and we can’t track every last news story in the world. So we’re not sure who died and made Calum Cashley chief of the Internet Police. But whoever it was did the cause of independence a great disservice by not clinging to life for a couple more years.
The Herald’s front-page headline this morning – that is, the most important thing the newspaper considers to be happening in the world today – is “Yes campaigners launch bid to silence cybernats“. We won’t insult our readers’ intelligence by naming its author. It exists solely as a result of the actions of Calum Cashley, and it manages to turn an event of such microscopic non-significance it wouldn’t have raised a gnat’s eyelash into a bilious spew of toxic No-campaign propaganda. Nice work, officer.
Anyone with a pair of eyes and a functioning brain in their head knows where the majority of poisonous abuse comes from in the independence debate. Indeed, even anyone who’d never so much as heard of Scotland could have accurately predicted it. Annihilated at every turn by the arguments, misinformation and smear are pretty much all the Unionist side has in its armoury.
Recent weeks have seen numerous examples go viral of how such tactics are beginning to fail – as the No camp has always known they would and will over time, which is why they were so desperate to have a snap referendum. Yet even as the Yes movement stands firm in the face of a relentless assault from the massed army of the media, some of its own troops are shooting arrows in its back.
We saw the tweet the Gardham story is built around. It was a silly but laughably innocuous line highlighting the fact that the BBC prohibits comments on most Scottish political stories, opening one up only when it’s made the national news and can be relied on to be swamped by Daily Telegraph readers from south of the border.
Cashley could easily have had a quiet word with the perpetrator and politely suggested he wasn’t doing his side any great favours with the comment. Or he could have totally ignored it, safe in the knowledge that almost nobody was ever going to see it. Instead he blew it up into such a major hoopla that the Herald managed to contrive a front page splash out of it – which of course still means that almost nobody is going to see it, but does give it a level of public credibility it doesn’t merit.
Depressingly, though, he isn’t alone in the Yes camp. There are others – we will name no names – who love nothing better than to elevate themselves above their brutish supposed comrades as some sort of high-minded moral arbiters, insisting on Marquis of Queensbury rules (and beyond) against an enemy packing brass knuckledusters in its gloves and bribing the referee. They too, like poor deformed Ephialtes, are led to serve their opponents by frustration and pique rather than conviction, but may yet still bring down catastrophe upon their supposed allies.
Or maybe, it occurs to us, we’re being unfair to Calum Cashley. Perhaps he’s playing a clever double agent’s game. Perhaps in encouraging the media to befoul the debate by vomiting out such obviously, crassly biased reportage, he’s merely deliberately facilitating and accelerating the process of the No camp driving every undecided voter – and many of its own supporters into the bargain – into the arms of YesScotland.
If so, we can only offer our apologies for blowing his cover. May he live forever.
Agree totally…
“never bring a knife to a gunfight”…
Gardham is a (poor) troll himself and he knows it… The only difference between him and a skilled operative is the best trollers don’t go greetin’ to their mammy when the big boys call them names.
Why the SNP decided to make any comment on this is beyond me.
Why no-one in the mainstream took Ian Smart’s deliberate ‘winding up of cybernats’ at the expense of 4 young lives is beyond me.
the unionists will always try and drag the debate to the gutter and despite all our best intentions, sometimes you just have to get down there in the mud and fight fire with fire.
I prefer to fight fire with truth.
Ranting and raving helps nobody. But you only have to glance at the Herald’s comments on the story to see how Cashley has handed the No camp a bat to hit us with. Already the paper’s resident unmoderated BritNats are on the offensive, describing perfectly calm and civil rebuttals as “screeds of abuse” and decrying the evil cybernats’ supposed tendency to insult their opponents as “fearties”.
Yet it’s barely a week since a Scottish Labour MP stood up in the House of Commons and used that exact word to describe the SNP. That level of sheer bare-faced brass neck is illustrative of what the likes of Cashley achieve. These people have no interest in a fair fight. If we turn our back on them at the end of a round, they’ll just hit us with a rabbit punch.
That doesn’t mean we should fight as dirty as them. It just means we should never drop our guard and do battle with one of our hands taped to our side by our own trainer.
Calum who???
It is interesting though, to see The Herald define the problem as being the abuse. The abuse is actually a RESULT of the problem..
The problem is deliberate trolling for reaction.
This takes 2 forms – Ian Smart, Foulkes etc style of out and out lunatic statements designed to get exactly the responses they seek
or, more insidiously,
The likes of Gardham (and the rest of the MSM) with a wafer thin veneer of legitimacy provided by status in the press, who could spin black was white in terms of the debate and does so deliberately which produces a similar reaction.
This whole thing is getting boring. ‘Cybernat’ seems to apply to anyone on the yes side at all, and the inference gaining ground is that anyone who supports yes is a cybernat and therefore a troll. If you so much as dare to correct something, you’re a cybernat and therefore a troll, and also a liar.
Also the comment from the Labour MSP in the article is outrageous.
I’m tired of it.
Yeh, Calum Cashley – who he?
I’m in favour of trying to get rid of ‘cybernats’ and ‘unitrolls’ (hmm).
It seems obvious that bams hurling abuse don’t help their cause, and when it comes to indyref, ‘turning people off’ will help the No campaign more than the Yes.
The problem obviously arises when the appeals for sanity are actually thinly veiled attacks on one side, as the whole cybernat thing has been in the majority of cases.
Some people obviously don’t like RevStu’s combative tone, but we’re not aiming for a big love in where nobody argues their point for fear of jeopardising the next tweetup dinner. By all means Ban the Bam, but not forceful discourse.
Also, string up Michael Forsyth, the beastly ("Quizmaster" - Ed).
Sorry bout temp. Change of moniker. Updated os on my iPad and it dropped all my settings. Have had to reload everything and made a typo.
The Herald article just tells me that us so called cybernats are winning the battle or why bother. I want an independent Scotland, not because I’m an Nationalist, no, it’s because I’m a rationalist. The no camp are irrationalists.
No one’s reading our newspaper. They’re all going to much more readable, honest and dependable sources, like Wings. Should we try and become readable, honest and dependable, like Wings? No. We shall smear and attack the “cybernats” instead.
Great work Herald. Shame no one (except your pro-Union financers, whoever they may be) is paying attention to what you say any more.
I think I’d like to hear Calum Cashley’s version of this before criticising him or have we started taking Herald stories at face value? One positive out of that article is the introduction (to me anyway, I had never heard of it before) is the term ‘unitroll’ for unionist equivalents to cybernats: we should use that. The Herald’s editorial says both sides ae as bad as each other: the usual line when you know you’re in the wrong.
“The Herald article just tells me that us so called cybernats are winning the battle”
Not really. First of all sensible people know that on the internet, every cause has its bams. A quick twitter search shows that the Unitroll is alive and well and normally supporting Rangers.
However, if the narrative of the Cybernat (and it is certainly a narrative, invented by unionist parties and coddled into the public consciousness by the Scottish media) gets traction then it does the intended job of repelling undecided people.
The idea that “aw yeah, we’re getting a reputation as rude angry mob! must mean we’re winning” is a fucking brilliant example of cybernat echo chamber thinking. There’s so much Comical Ali level stuff in the comments on this site (beggin your pardon Rev, the articles are good).
Cashkey has form on this, even as some respected posters here have, denigrating the general public, not invited into the adult club (having posts allowed onto Better Nation for example)
“Cybernat” is a slur spread by Foulkes and taken up by Unionists and those of the ‘Yes’ camp horrified that they are not the only voices heard
People being rude online, just like they do in real life Pass the smelling salts dear, I’m getting an attack of the vapours.
As I understand it the SNPDunblane account was an official Scottish National Party twitter account (the rest of this comment predicated on that notion).
Nice of Superintendant Cashley & co to decide to turn hand the brit-nats & associated media a stick with which to self-righteously beat everyone on the internet who is pro-indy (oops I mean cybernats), rather than than turn the spotlight onto the difficulties modern political parties (particulalry the broad-church varieties) have in managing *their own* social media ‘assets’.
It’s a boldly sleekit move to tar your cause’s grassroots with the shitey end of a stick to make the official party involved look more like they’re working jolly-well super hard to be the nice guys.
Fucking failure.
“However, if the narrative of the Cybernat (and it is certainly a narrative, invented by unionist parties and coddled into the public consciousness by the Scottish media) gets traction then it does the intended job of repelling undecided people.”
Absolutely. Which is why Cashley is an idiot for helping it.
oh, to be able to edit posts afterwards (omitted words, not substance)…
When are the next set of sales figures due out for regional newspapers?
“The idea that “aw yeah, we’re getting a reputation as rude angry mob! must mean we’re winning” is a fucking brilliant example of cybernat echo chamber thinking.”
It essentially does mean that, though. If all your opponent has to throw at you is smears and name-calling, it generally DOES suggest that they’ve conceded the argument.
“When are the next set of sales figures due out for regional newspapers?”
Any day now.
“oh, to be able to edit posts afterwards (omitted words, not substance)…”
You can, just not if someone’s replied already. If it’s just omitted words, feel free to post a request with the version you want and I’ll fix it.
I don’t think this is a ‘bad thing’. Anyone that is interested, already knows the truth about the subject. If The Herald can bring any new folk onto the internet to see what all the fuss is about, then that is to be welcomed. The truth is online.
If you don’t tell us what was said I’ll be forced to go into my local supernarket and read that particular bit in the Herald in the newspaper rack
@H Scott
“I think I’d like to hear Calum Cashley’s version of this before criticising him or have we started taking Herald stories at face value?”
Sort of fair enough, but Cashley has a blog and a twitter account – it would appear (so far) that he isn’t bothered about how he has been quoted/represented in the article under discussion.
Indeed – Chris Jones’ twitter account will give you the flavour of how important it is for them as ‘decent party-folk’ to ‘police’ the loons and cybernats (not ‘non-decent party-folk’, which would be within their remit you’d think).
Cheers Stu,
It’s more trouble than it’s worth for a couple of omitted words – I’ll just need to type more carefully and re-read before hitting send. 🙂
I will come to Calum Cashley’s defence here. Having read some of his blogs – such as his forensic dishing of CBI Scotland http://bit.ly/Vb5Jyw – he is an individual for whom I have some respect. (Although I am at a loss to know why he blocks me on Twitter.)
If we look at what Cashley said, it’s pretty innocuous stuff. As ever, it is the spin put on the non-story by rent-a-hacks such as Gardham which causes the problem. I’m sure Calum Cashley never envisaged his comments being front page news. And I am certain he is as irked as any of us would be to find his views being used to contrive yet another vacuous smear against independence campaigners.
I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.
George Bernard Shaw
I am not so worried about this as some are-and I do like Calum Cashley’s blog, although he does not seem to update it much now. He is indeed entitled to the benefit of a very large doubt, surely.
Those who are opposed to independence will just swallow the vicious cybernat myth whole, and their vote will not change.
Others will wonder what all the fuss is abou,t and start looking online and will find sites such as this inspiring one.
I am confident that unionist abuse vastly outweighs nationalist abuse, and so the net effect will be to undermine the distortions (let’s call them lies) of the unionist MSM-I feel a backfire will be the effect,.
As someone earlier wrote, the very fact the Herald Editorial says the unionist and nationalist abuse is equivalent tells you the unionists are worse 🙂
The “NO” campaign would have collapsed by now if it wan’t for the orchestrated dirty tricks stories originating from Westminster’s spooks via the BBC and the MSM in Scotland and the sooner this conspiracy is exposed the sooner we will get a proper debate about independence.
Marcus is so shorn of real Unionist stuff to write about as the barrel is now empty.
He is now scaping about under the barrel and it is so obvious, even surely to most ardent BritNat if they ever bother to read his insights.
Carry on Marcus, please!
I think this could be good. People might want to find out what all the fuss is about. They’ll come online and instead of “cybernat abuse”, they’ll find rational arguments, witty comments, reasoned rebuttals of media propaganda and lies, etc.
Unfortunately Cashley and others, such as Kate Higgins, seem to be under the impression that to win the independence referendum, the Yes campaign have to be pals with the media and the No campaign. They seem to think that if they are nice, and don’t ask any questions of the media in particular, then there will be a Yes vote. I am not sure if this is hopelessly naive or hints at a lack of mental toughness. Cashley and co. seem to want to be nice to their opponents, while severely criticizing elements of their own side. They only seem to get angry at their own side and never seem to comment on the bile from the No campaign (such as Salmond being a dictator etc). It really is odd.
Marian
Tend to agree
“If you don’t tell us what was said I’ll be forced to go into my local supernarket and read that particular bit in the Herald in the newspaper rack”
Won’t help – the Herald doesn’t quote the “offending” tweet.
Unionists are gravely concerned by the huge and articulate on-line presence of nationalism – it constitutes a serious political threat. Blogs and social media don’t reach into every home (alas) but neither do the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman. The information battle would be leaning heavily in the separatist direction were it not for the BBC, which will be seen by the historians of the future as the last beleaguered outpost of empire, a media version of Rourke’s Drift, except that the Zulus won.
For Unionists internet engagement with the independence movement is out of the question – in debating terms, they would be eaten alive. They cannot match the energy and articulacy of the independence posters. And they have a terrible handicap: telling the truth would cost them the argument. Only idea left in the box: try to portray nationalists online as a marauding horde of vizigoths – it’s a long shot, but it might work, Cap’n.
Given Cashley’s position it’s probable he was put up to this – the higher ranks of the party wanted to do a bit of token distancing of themselves from the bear pit. Being charitable, perhaps the error of judgement wasn’t his.
I am afraid that much of what is being discussed here, simply escapes me. I am not up on social media, in fact I do not do any of them. Is this “crackdown” limited to Twitter or will Cashley and his palls be trawling t’internet to “police” bampots like myself?
Says who?
“I will come to Calum Cashley’s defence here. Having read some of his blogs – such as his forensic dishing of CBI Scotland http://bit.ly/Vb5Jyw – he is an individual for whom I have some respect. (Although I am at a loss to know why he blocks me on Twitter.)”
That’s as may be. But he has previous form in the internet-police business. And the Herald’s front page will get a lot more readers than his blog does.
What a great pity no one got screen shots of the exchange betwixt Mr Pious Cashley and the Dunblane nat. I have seen no evidence any where that any Unionist type has ever cautioned one of their own, and some really offensive stuff has come out. And from elected politicians such as Davidson, Forsyth and others. I have specifically asked Lord McConnell and the junketing EK MP Michael McCann to comment on Davidsons last out burst in the commons, and was told to ask Davidson. So even given the chance these hypocrites will not condemn the racist bigotry Davidson is guilty of. I say we need much more of this abuse it is wonderful. And grist to the mill.
For the record – since it seems to be important to point it out – I have read and enjoyed Mr Cashley’s blog for a long time, and have the greatest respect for his ability to take stuff apart and present goods.
But that’s not really the topic is it?
They new the article was coming out. The nail on which the story hangs is the SNP’s SNPDunblane twitter account fiasco. He doesn’t have the decency to address that, instead he gives – “It is not a party thing. The problem is they are not party members. The party does not know who they are.” Got that! Hang the story on some unfortunate tweets coming out of a prty twitter account, and “It is not a party thing”
So, fine, he’s tried to give some ‘both sides can be as bad as one another, but we’re trying to sort ours out’ schtick but Calum Cashley and Chris Jones aren’t the indy police; make sure your party members and assets are working the way they should by all means, but don’t buy into and enhance the msm meaning of ‘cybernat’ by supine acceptance, whiledeflecting from your own internal failings.
MSM: cybernats = bad
SNP: em ok, cybernat = bad
MSM: on the net & pro-indy = cybernat
MSM: on the net and pro-indy = bad
SNP: wut?!?
brit-nats: sweet…
There is no “crackdown”. The headline is, as we have come to expect, a lie.
@Peter A Bell
“There is no “crackdown””
Indeed, but only because the policing of individual independence supporters in the wild west of the internet is beyond even deputies ‘Cash ‘n Jones’ 🙂
Let’s be clear – the reason cybernats are a problem to all strata of Unionist cognoscenti (pols, hacks, et al) is their knowledge of the issues and their ability to articulate a position and skillfully prosecute a line of argument.
It is extraordinary in my experience to have so many working stiffs on one side of an issue who are able to so thoroughly slice and dice the alleged professionals of the other side.
The reason Iain Gray, hero of the Killing Fields and the Subway, got so bent out of shape about the roasting he took from cybernats, was because they exposed him as a fraud and a hypocrite with respect to his policy positions and his many flip-flops on key issues.
And the more out to lunch and loonier they are, the more they risk evisceration at the hands of the cybernattery. Take Ian Smart (please!) – as daft as a brush, his long-held insistence that Salmond would not pursue a referendum vote, despite all the evidence to the contrary, went beyond the laughable into the realm of the certifiable.
David Torrance and Alex Massie, are another brace of impaired wide boys who sell the most outrageous snake oil, claiming equivalence between the autonomy brought by independence and the autonomy that may (will) be gifted by “the other (Unionist) Nationalist” parties . . sometime. Voting NO really means means YES to Scottish independence. Voting NO leads to acquisition of the same “mysterious powers” as can be had by voting YES..
Revealing the bankruptcy and hypocrisy of their arguments upsets them most. Many feel they have been gutted and laid bare, and that leads them to harbour great animus toward those who exposed their mendacity and their quackery.
So cybernats are a factor in this campaign because they harness the Unionist’s own fecklessness and hubris and use it to dissect them.
Succinctly, they don’t like it up ’em!
You are correct. The imagined “crackdown” is as impossible as it is futile and unnecessary.
If the debate wasn’t important enough to provoke emotional responses then it wouldn’t be worth having. The idea that the whole of the debate is undermined by a few ill-considered comments is just plain silly.
Personally, I enjoy the occasional arch put-down so long as it is artfully executed. And that applies even if I’m on the receiving end.
Has the Herald writen anything yet about the BBC trolling Lucinda Creighton?
I have to ask because the only time I want to see the Herald is when relatives give us old papers to line the cat litter tray.
@ Marian “Westminster spooks via the BBC and MSM”… the sooner this conspiracy is exposed the sooner we will get a proper debate about independence:.
I think Ms Lamont did a fair job of exposure when she complained at FM Question Time over public abuse towards the Herald, Scotsman, and the BBC. She did use the term cybernat to describe said public, not very astute politically.
Now why would she say that? Her the “Leader” of a big national political party complaining because the public are affording themselves the opportunity, thanks to the internet, to express their views without newspaper editor’s censure of their views?
Followed up by the Herald article today.Oddly convenient timing, surely just a coincidence?
That the pre-recorded BBC Question Time programme allowed the “wisecrack” over nuclear waste – dump it in Scotland and then give them independence – was a disgrace.
The Westminster debates on the Section 30 were a disgrace.
And Lamont complains that the public are expressing THEIR views? Also a disgrace.
I’ve plodded thro’ the on-line Herald comments on this subject this morning. Peace seems to have settled between the cybernats and the unitrolls.
Oxford dictionary:
Cyber – relating to electronic communication networks and virtual reality.
Troll – (Scandinavian) a fabulous being, esp. giant or dwarf, dwelling in a cave.
or, – fish by drawing bait along the water.
– sing out in a carefree jovial manner!!
I suspect that cave dwelling will distort electronic communication signals for Unitrolls.
The really crass thing about all this is the editorial decision to put such a complete non-story on the front page. Was there nothing more important to tell people about?
I’m intrigued also by: ‘ A group of respected party activists, with a high-profile presence on social media, has begun policing offensive comments on blogs and social networking site Twitter.’ A ‘group’, eh? and an unidentified one at that?…the inference being that the SNP has some kind of shady online police force whipping people into shape (it’s that dictatorship thing again). Sure, the party has social media guidelines – what organisation doesn’t? – but they are creditably relaxed ones. All the same, as someone who runs an SNP twitter a/c, if I started being gratuitously offensive, I would expect to be slapped down – but by party headquarters, not some anonymous group of ‘respected party activists’. I doubt this sinister group exists anywhere other than the writer’s imagination.
@naebd
I agree with your post. what I was trying to say is: if the cybernats where not a threat to this beautiful union there wouldn’t be any MSM coverage deriding them. I also agree with @andrew_haddow let the unaware undecideds and no’s investigate what a cybernat is and make up their own minds regarding who is making a reasonable, rational, positive and factual contribution to the debate.
Tag *everything* we/you do and post online online with the #cybernat tag. Unionist spin can’t do much if it’s a badge of honour.
The only people that really care about “cybernat” are the less intelligent unionists who get out their depth having a conversation/debate without a script or handler. (case in point, see Johann Lamont this week @ FMQ’s) Accusations of “cybernat” will appear when you start to win arguments. Smile and know you’ve done a good job. It’s a defence mechanism something akin to: “I don’t really have an answer to that now; ergo you must be just a bullying cybernat.”; and a protective shield when their ego bursts after being called out on untenable positions.
Discussing “cybernat” on our side of the fence is just a waste of time, lets move on and let the unionists waste their time on this frivolous bollocks instead.
“Cashley could easily have had a quiet word with the perpetrator and politely suggested he wasn’t doing his side any great favours with the comment…Instead he blew it up into such a major hoopla that the Herald managed to contrive a front page out of it…”
If it was an official twitter SNP account how difficult would it have been for Cashley to have phoned/emailed and discreetly asked them to take it down if he didn’t like it.
I don’t know how Gardham got hold of the story but Cashley wasn’t stupid enough to criticise his own side in public and online was he?
Quote of the day for my money…
Peter A Bell –
“If the debate wasn’t important enough to provoke emotional responses then it wouldn’t be worth having. The idea that the whole of the debate is undermined by a few ill-considered comments is just plain silly.”
Sorry for going o/t. Jim Sillars is in today’s Times saying that he holds no grudges and that if the SNP asked for help tomorrow, he’d say yes.
I’m thinking better inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
The one thing that is important in the debate is talking to those that may be swayed either way.
The Edinburgh Agreement is signed, the Section 30 almost concluded and the Question decided. It is now time to move on to the substantive points regarding what an Independent country does, how it functions and what benefits befit such a country.
Let the No camp plough whichever furrow they wish. Its up to us to show the options that are not yet available to us. Much can be gained by starting now and getting information and ideas out to those who show some interest. Spring Conferences start next month – lets move forward with a positive vision for Scotland and leave those without squabbling in the mud.
Keef
I would like Jim Sillars to do what he did in 1979 and have a series of public meetings around the country in support of a yes vote.
Cannot get enthused with Calum Cashley’s comments when I read worse bile coming from those who support the Union.
@ Keef says:
Sorry to disagree but both Sillars and Magnus have been spouting a load of anti-Indepence pish for awhile now…..so I suppose that now makes me a cybernat…btw..proud to be one
Balgayboy.
I agree. That is why I suggest getting him ‘inside the independence tent’.
I’m sure Blair Jenkins or AS could make use of his profile.
Aw, no mention of this yet?
@ creag an tuirc
Let them seek truth ,
THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE !!!
Note for Callum Cashley:
Discretion is the better part of valour.
‘I’m thinking better inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.’
Of course the worst of all worlds may be him inside the tent pissing all over his fellow campers.
Sillars certainly gives the impression of being in the most massive huff so a bit of ego stroking may salve his wounds, but I get the impression Sillars is so set in his curmudgeonly ways he’d find it very difficult to give up the carping.
@ScotFree1320
“Discretion is the better part of valour”.
Indeed it is, but sometimes you need be open about making an example to highlight the differences.
Sorry for going O/T, but i wish i was more ‘pooter savvy to do it myself.
It would be good if someone could make a graphic of the Guardian poster alongside some of the Nazi anti-Jewish posters. Could you tell the difference?
Imagine, if you will that we were having the Independence referendum and there was no internet! All of us, the ordinary citizens would have absolutely no say beyond the MSM outlets. Indeed I suspect that without the internet the MSM would be following the BBC and not allowing any comment on their propaganda pieces, and what an environment that would be. No this is in my view about grass roots democracy where we, the people rightly have a say in the debate about our future and it is this simple fact that they, the unionists and their MSM propagandists don’t like. I am heartened that they are attacking us, it means that we are effective, They can can call me a cybernat if they wish, but I will not be silenced until we get our independence, it is my democratic right.
I posted this link the other day, but it was at the end of the thread and I’m not sure that it was spotted. Looks like the EU has plans to restrict internet search and the publication of “alternative” opinions. They even plan on “re-educating” Europe to encourage approval of the EU, starting in the classroom.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-on-media-freedom-undermining-the-independent-alternative-online-media-eu-to-manipulate-internet-search-engines/5321104
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6680-why-all-of-us-should-get-to-glasgow-on-saturday-february-23rd
A good reason to get along to this event in Glasgow, Who knows maybe Magnus will make the effort if he’s so affronted by all this bias.
O/T
Senior Political Analyst Christopher Howarth explains tory thinking……
“….Conservative Policy on the UK is clear – to persuade Scottish voters to stay. This is the right policy and persuasion is far preferable to say Spain’s less gentle approach towards Catalonia….”
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/01/christopher-howarth-two-unions-two-borders-two-islands-why-the-future-of-the-eu-and-uk-places-the-br.html
@mark piggott –
Beat me to it Mark, I tried posting same link. The article is persuasive, and the comments very interesting. I’m definitely going. NNS have said ‘they’ll be there’ but I don’t know if they’ll be an identifiable group.
I asked this before, and ‘no answer’ came the reply – anyone have ideas for snappy, memorable slogans? I was thinking about something simple like ‘Stop The Lies’, but it’s a bit, I don’t know, hysterical??
Any suggestions?
Sorry for the O/T: Attended a St Andrews Society Burns Night for local charities in Ulsan South Korea, great sucess it was, it was participated by nationalities from all parts of the globe and was just one big enjoyable party. Over £34K for local charities was contributed by sponsors and guests including the british ambassador (Scottish BTW). The bottom line is that the rest of the world enjoyed the Scottish culture and they were very comfortable with the friendship, comradeship and universal brotherhood. Scotland stands proud and respected in this world.
Public Service? Public Scandal!
BBC News? BBC Spin!
Boycott BBC Bias!
Stop me, they don’t get much better I’m afraid. 🙁
Actually, they chant quite well. Alternate between lines one and three, then two and three. Works for me, though I don’t know if that was the sort of thing you are hoping for.
@Keef
“I’m thinking better inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in”
Inside the tent isn’t good enough for Jim – he has to be top of the tent pole. In Jim’s world the entire planet made a huge mistake and failed to notice that he was the new messiah. He’s the David Icke of nationalism and consequently the only direction he can piss is into the tent. On the bright side, kidney performance declines as we age and we can probably look forward to a steady dwindling of Jimmy’s golden stream. I’m an old guy so I can reassure you about this. If I pissed into your tent you wouldn’t notice.
I wasn’t planning to chant anything, but all suggestions gratefully received.
Am i a vile Cybernat?I might have questioned the loyalty,integrity,patriotism and intelligence of a few Britnats before,in terms of the debate….
@ianbrotherhood
Try BBC w**k w**k w**k
Vronsky.
hope your not too old to remember and undo yer fly first 🙂
It’s about creating a mythical enemy against the good people of Scotland (ie cybernats) thus a mythical problem to create a stick to beat the SNP with. It’s the “look at the horrible people, dangerous lunatics that support independence, and those bad Natz and Alex Mugabe/Stalin/Hilter supports them.
This week on FMQ we see Johann Lamont express her disgust at the (pretend) torrent of abuse the Irish Minister supposedly got from cybernats which forced her to release clarification on the comments she made to BBC’s Raymond Buchanan. This will be a tactic that Johann Lamont will continue to use from now on to try and get the SNP to admit there is a problem and ergo is a problem the SNP have caused.
You see this in American politics in the run up to the Presidential election where (mostly Republican) commentators mention some loon in the woods (if he exists at all) that has gotten himself a website with extreme anti-whatever views, and they expose this as a dangerous Obama-supporting movement or organisation that is a threat to the American way of life (usually the dreaded socialism), and it’s Obama’s fault.
Anyway, typical of a Unionist tactic, in which most backfire on themselves, the Pro-Indy support could easily highlight those lovely Ulster Unionists, EDL/SDL and BNP supporters as core Unionist NO campaigners, and those are very real organisations to beat the NO campaign with. It is far more difficult to prove what a cybernat is compared to those pro-Union groups and the worst thing that could happen is for the SNP or YES Campaign to admit that cybernats do exist then they become a mythical evil organisation and therefore headline news on BBC.
I have to agree with the general tenet of this article. It’s bad enough having the entire Establishment and media against you without having to take friendly fire from people like Calum Cashley. I have enjoyed some of his blog posts and articles in the past, and admired his forensic dissection of unionists, but he was a fool for making such a public show. It is perfectly feasible to have a one-on-one via Twitter without alerting the opposition. It is also inconceivable to me that an account like “SNPDunblane” wasn’t in some way affiliated to the SNP and not easily dealt with via internal channels. If he really told the Herald that SNPDunblane is not a party thing and not party members he is a liar. “Cybernats” in general, yes, but not that specific account.
As for Jim Sillars, why do you think he gets such widespread media coverage every time he farts? Is it because he is so good for the independence cause or is it, do you think, because his every pronouncement can be used against us? He needs to earn his place inside the tent, and I don’t think he has.
“Vronsky says:
Inside the tent isn’t good enough for Jim – he has to be top of the tent pole”
Absolutely. If he wasn’t afforded the respect he thinks he is due (read co-leader of the SNP), he’d just chuck his toys out the pram. He is a figure of fun now and it is all his own words that’s done that.
Holebender the reason I used the tent analogy was it was meant to convey the idea that it was better to have him inside your camp where it is easier to limit his perceived damage to the campaign, rather than having him left outside on his own. He has said he bears no grudges and would be happy to help the SNP if asked. I think the fact he was at one time the deputy leader of the SNP would merit him a place somewhere in the camp. Perhaps you might be a wee bit too harsh there.
life is too short to hold grudges and every yes vote is one closer to victory and freedom.
Fuck’s sake. So I see nothing was learned from the last “Cybernat” witch hunt by Cashley, Jones, Higgins and others (which was some sort of competition amongst themselves to do with getting people to say “Quisling”, if I remember correctly)?
All this sort of stuff does is create ill-feeling amongst supposed allies. What is it, are we feeling so sorry for the way Better Together keeps scoring own goals that we feel we need to start dividing and conquering our own side?
That aside – front page news? Really?
I’m not holding a grudge, I am questioning the wisdom of bringing such a loose cannon into our camp where it could do even more damage than if it is a lone voice in the wilderness. Think about a scenario where JS gets some sort of official recognition from YesScotland or the SNP and then has one of his brainfarts which is picked up by the entire (hostile) media. Instead of former deputy leader Jim Sillars says xyz, we have Senior Vice President Jim Sillars says xyz. Which is more damaging? Granted he might be easier to control, but can you be sure he won’t slip the leash once in a while and say something god-awful?
Calum doesn’t like criticism.
I’ve tried to engage with him on his blog, but to no avail.
Strange man.
@Keef – surely Jim Sillars should be talking about joining the YES campaign not the SNP. If he is serious about independence, should he not just sign the declaration?
I haven’t spent a lot of time on unionist web sites but from the little I’ve seen on middle of the road sites it would seem that the naysayers have a much more venomous brand of bile.
Given johan’s notice of intent at FMQ I would hope that someone in SNP HQ/YesScotland is diligently trolling the various sites and collecting samples of unionist bile as ammunition for the defence.
Boorach they need look no further than the racist ‘cartoon’ in the gruniad.
I’m sorry but Sillars’ piece in today’s Times is in the most part destructive and an attack on the YES campaign.
He has had every opportunity to contribute to the debate in this party for years and there has been no barrier to him playing a full part in the relentless momentum of the SNP for years. Does he see the bandwagon leaving without him?
Boorach says:
2 February, 2013 at 3:58 pm
“Given johan’s notice of intent at FMQ I would hope that someone in SNP HQ/YesScotland is diligently trolling the various sites and collecting samples of unionist bile as ammunition for the defence.”
How will they get this bile out to the public’s attention though? Using 4 tragic deaths in an avalanche as a point-scoring exercise didn’t even make it into the MSM.
I lost respect for Sillars in 1992, and gained massive respect for Salmond. Jim threw his toys out of the pram and departed in the huff to make money in Saudi Arabia. Alex took a deep breath and plodded on.
Now I acknowledge that Salmond had a seat at Westminster, while Sillars lost his. He had to do something. However his “Ninety minute patriots” farewell note was less than edifying. My real criticism of him is for his behaviour in 1999.
He could have walked into an MSP seat in 1999. He would have been welcomed, and he had a massive contribution to make. He could have been in the cabinet from 2007, he could have been Deputy FM, depending on how well he shaped up. Who knows?
He didn’t. He chose not to be involved at all. Everything went on without him. And everybody managed perfectly well without him. He wasn’t indispensable. Few people are.
But in 1999 (and 2003) he relinquished his right to muscle in and claim a place in the eventual Scottish government. Even now, if he got off his high horse and came in to help like the rest of us, he’d be welcome. But if he chooses to go on sitting on the sidelines and criticising, I for one have no respect at all.
Has anyone got a txt copy of the Times article?I cant access the site cause they want money that i wont give them.
I came across this by accident.
Margaret Curran MP seems to be jumping on the bandwagon on Twitter –
“About time SNP get to grips with abusive tweets. Wonder if this means the sexism and personal abuse in my feed will stop. #indyref”https://twitter.com/Margaret_Curran/status/297728360539361280
The following are two twitter replies she has deleted, so maybe these are typical of what she means by the sexism and abuse which she holds the SNP responsible for –
@Margaret_Curran pipe down Margaret, it’s only football that’s allowed on twitter on Saturdays. 6nations acceptable today also….
@Margaret_Curran are you suggesting said sexist abuse is endorsed by the SNP? Or orchestrated?
Christian Wright @ 11.59am
Agreed. I also get the distinct impression that The Guardian are now on a deliberate wind up simply to get the hits (quantity over quality) – rather than have to raise the standard of the ‘journalism’ on offer. It really does seem to be their business model as far as Scotland goes; just churn out what is inaccurate and/or offensive to bait a reaction. Steve Bell’s pathetic cartoon the other day being the latest in this.
I’m fast arriving at the conclusion that it would actually be more effective to simply no longer reply or react in any way at all and see just how fast they wind their necks in and start making a better effort.
Without the informative posts by Yes voters these articles/blogs/cartoons would fade quickly, hardly noticed. It is the dynamic provided by Yes voting posters which makes these things in any way credible or interesting. Withdraw that and it would quickly make the online editions of these papers look as pathetic as their paper equivalents already do. Imagine it, yet another substandard article with a handful of moronic unionist echo chamber drool for comments, can’t see advertisers being all that impressed for long!
Poor Magnus. Poor Calum. Someone’s wrong on the internet? All that’s needs to be said has been said before, and better: http://xkcd.com/386/ The internet, full of win^Wwrong since before 1993.
Elsewhere in the media, there was more win in today’s Good Morning Scotland. (Still no substitute for Newsweek though.) Derek Bateman talks to David Torrance and Alan Cochrane about the signs and wonders contained in Ruth Davidson’s speech the other week. Very much worth listening to, especially for Cochrane’s input. This is immediately followed by another journalistic menage a trois, this time Batemen gets down and dirty with Angus MacLeod of the Times and Andrew Nichol of the Sun, exploring the Electoral Commission’s request for clarity. Also good. Mr Nichol’s position can’t have made anyone at Better Together very happy.
All this can be yours by tootling over to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01q968f Starts just before the 9 minute mark. A much better use of your time than worrying about anything Mr Gardham has to say.
P.S. Dear Rev Stu, the strike-out option doesn’t work!
A newspaper that manages to get a front page story out of this is a rather stricken operation – it’s not a policy story, it’s not even a process story. The idea of a newspaper front page is to present stories that will either engage or enrage the reader – this won’t even be read – 95% of the readers won’t even go past the first sentence. I suppose you’re still in something of a phoney war part of the campaign, at least until the date of the referendum is announced – there’s no news to report, but there’s still pages to fill, so expect a lot more stories like this ’til then.
Still, if it’s an SNP attempt to distance itself from internet comments, it might not be all bad -they’re just going to be tarred with every post that can be construed as offensive or vicious, so a bit of deniability may be what they’re going for here.
I don’t think it’ll do them much good, but if it’s the case, at least it’s a sign of some strategy and not just cack-handedness.
@Joe Kane
on the subject of abuse, I’ve just replied to her ” who said ‘if Alex Salmond was killed by being run over by a bus she would not want to find out who the driver was”?
We’ll see if she deletes that too.
btw I see BBC reporting Scottish Labour has announced the appointment of a new general secretary for the party. It’s Ian Price, who was head of public affairs and marketing at RSPB Scotland. He was previously a Labour organiser in north-east Scotland.
If Wings hadn`t mentioned this i wouldn`t have known anything about it,i`m not sufficiently interested to even bother looking.
I could be classed as a Cybernat,i do tend to notice the trolls but just use their bile to post links from the MSM to embarrass them,the response normally turns into abuse,the internet is our friend,we just need to remain focused.
There are more lurkers than members of sites,who are they going to believe?
@tootscapoot;
“I’m fast arriving at the conclusion that it would actually be more effective to simply no longer reply or react in any way at all and see just how fast they wind their necks in and start making a better effort. ”
Better effort? You’re seeing their best work and it’s a respectable effort. Their job is to normalise the barbarism of the UK/US corporate machine and persuade the lumpen-middle (to paraphrase Marx) that murder on an industrial scale is fine if it gets you a better valuation on the stock exchange. Honourable figures say the Union is OK. Kirsty Wark says it’s OK , Billy Connolly says it’s OK, Robbie Coltrane says it’s OK. So it must be OK. Shakespeare is good at sarcasm:
Brutus is an honourable man.
So are they all, all honourable men
All honourable men. BBC Scotland is the least of the corporation’s crimes. Elsewhere Auntie BEEB is defending genocide in Palestine and drumming up war against Iran and Syria. Kirsty, Billy and Robbie will happily declare their support for these barbarisms if asked, and paid. Hence I recommend that we react. So Ian Brotherhood might be right about doing the demo anyway, however futile. My knowledge of anatomy is incomplete but despite years of careful study I don’t think a cunt can wind in its neck.
Regarding media bias (and apologies if this has been mentioned before in this thread or others) I note from NNS that there is to be a march in central Glasgow on 23 Feb at 4pm entitled “Illuminate the Debate”. It will basically call on the MSM – but especially the BBC – to cover the referendum fairly.
Aye, I know – fat chance – but, as ever, the more folk are on the street, the harder it will be for them to ignore it.
Don’t know who the organisers are. Anybody …?
There are some striking similarities between the “rude cybernat” canard beloved of unionists and the “militant aggressive atheists” one favoured by churchy types. I guess privileged groups just find it difficult when they suddenly find their cherished orthodoxies being challenged.
On Sillars I agree with others that he is a liability. I don’t take any pleasure in saying that because of his talents, and contribution to the SNP in the 1980s. This obviously includes the Govan by-election in 1988. His political instinct has gone. An example was when he and Gordon Wilson were appealing for SNP voters to vote No in 1997.
Re Cybernats: I don’t like telling people what to say, but there is something I have noticed about some independence supporters. They occasionally call unionists “Uncle Toms,” “("Quizmaster" - Ed)s and ("Tractor" - Ed)s.” I think a lot of the time it is said in frustration during a debate on the internet. However, I really do not think it is helpful at all. On the whole though Cybernats debate well, usually fairly and robustly. Christian Wright’s post earlier was very good.
On the Cybernat debate: I think that the unionists go on about it because they are losing the argument. They don’t like to be challenged and are consequently throwing the toys out of the pram at increasingly more frequent intervals. I also think social media and internet has contributed significantly to the SNP’s victories in 2007 and 2011. That is another reason they don’t like it.
zedeeyen
Define a “faith?”
How is this
1; Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Part 2 really does ring the bell.
The French call “faiths” cults
There’s been some mention of Magrit Curran’s tweets today. I noticed among the exchanges that Lord Ffffoulkes is claiming to have no knowledge of unitroll abuse. I recall about a month ago there was an exchange which, I think, involved Wings or maybe RevStu in which unionist abuse was pointed out to Ffffoulkes and he ultimately acknowledged that the stuff was bad. I’m fairly new to Twitter and I don’t know how to search it efficiently, but it would be good if someone could throw that back in his face today.
On a more general note I’m afraid the ongoing exchange involving Curran, Ffffoulkes and Joan McAlpine among others is rather proving their point. Curran complains about cybernat abuse and someone of an independentista persuasion throws examples of her own abuse in her face. Can’t you see how that will be twisted and turned into an example of poor wee Magrit getting abused by cyberbullies? People, please, don’t feed the trolls!
“It would be good if someone could make a graphic of the Guardian poster alongside some of the Nazi anti-Jewish posters. Could you tell the difference?”
I linked to lots of the latter recently.
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-nats-are-our-misfortune/
Wouldn’t it be good if we could somehow declare a ‘non compliance day’. Say it was April the first. If every indy supporter decided on that day to stop reading unionist sites. stopped buying unionist newspapertoiletroll, stopped paying the BBC propoganda tax. Can you imagine that?
Can you imagine the effect?
@Stu 6.02
I know you did, but i’m thinking of the visual impact of some of those posters in a montage with the Guardians included.
From Scotsman 8th May 2012.
“Dr Mark Shephard of Strathclyde University last month hosted a discussion in the House of Commons – “”Discourse on Scottish Independence – Politicians versus Publics””. Dr Shephard is in early stages of investigating social media comments on the Scottish independence debate to explore the nature of posts and their possible effects on behaviour. The findings, based on analysis of online comments under articles on independence, show the vast majority of posts are anti-SNP/independence and anti-Salmond rather than anti-English/anti-union.
In terms of language, too, comments about the SNP and independence are mujch more vitriolic than about the union and UK.”
I don’t buy any Scottish newspapers any more. I would suggest that the best thing we “cybernats” can do is completely ignore the MSM. If you must post be polite. That way we will win. The fair-minded amongst us don’t like bullying, lying and and name-calling.
All you need to do is go onto the daily mail, telegraph and Scotsman to see the level of hatred and bile aimed in our direction. Any impartial observer would admit that the British Nationalists by and large are much more offensive and aggressive than ourselves. Its almost comical that we hear the “both as bad as each other” etc, no we’re not, there behaviour by and large is much more extreme and its about time the truth was told on the matter.
This anger comes from two reasons, one because they know there arguments don’t hold up to scrutiny and they understand we are winning the intellectual debate or because of there inability to articulate with evidence the reason of their political and national allegiance. We on the other hand have facts and evidence on our side making debating easy. I must echo earlier comments. Its impossible to referee the internet, any debate with this sort of firmly held polarized beliefs is bound to cause emotion and to expect tempers not to flair from time to time is naive.
The huge fuss over such an issue is because we terrify them. By pointing out the truth, huge innacuracies and scare stories perpetuated by the Scottish media we are merely trying to enlighten the population, don’t believe the bias and often factually nonsense you read, here are the real facts. The reason we exist is because we have been created by the powers of propaganda.
@Vronsky
That last sentence is a belter……….if only I had the courage to quote it!
“I know you did, but i’m thinking of the visual impact of some of those posters in a montage with the Guardians included.”
Well, what’s stopping you? DO I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING MYSELF AROUND HERE?
@Vronsky –
I now know what to write on my wee placard – it’ll be the last clause in your most recent post.
Slainte!
I think it was back in Nov/Dec I posted that Independence supporters would have to start being careful about what they post and to start thinking , could the unionists turn this against us ? I was as guilty as the next person for using words beginning with the letter T, or Q etc .
As for abuse , hate and racial comments , you only have to look at some of the comments that were allowed on to the b.b.c comments this week to see what side have the worst cyber posters . As far as I am concerned I am going to turn the word cybernat against the unionists
When I go on holiday at Easter I will take a cybernat hat and t shirt with me in the hope that people will stop me and ask me if I am really a cybernat . With the media bringing the word cybernat to the fore , it should make it easier to open up discussions with undecided voters and hopefully when they see we are not the raving lunatics the media make us out to be they will start questioning the media and unionist lies . The one good point I take from all the fuss about cybernats is that the No campaign must be worried about us or they would not be making a song and dance about us . I would even go so far as to say that if the unionists ever get to the stage where they try to shut down sites like Facebook , twitter , W.O.S or Newsnetscotland etc , then we will know we are winning big time .
Lack of skills Stu. I was feeding an idea into the domain of the the folks with the skills.
I’m an old fart with a sense of awe at modern technology.
Can I politely suggest than in future when confronted with blatant trolling, we merely respond by posting the linked image?
http://uk.search.yahoo.com/mobile/s?rewrite=72&.tsrc=apple&first=1&p=tumbleweed&pintl=en-gb&pcarrier=O2+-+UK&pmcc=234&pmnc=10#slider=open
Dave Smith
far too gentle – I prefer:
http://tinyurl.com/c52gvbu
So who done this then?
http://twitpic.com/b0ceo9
Come on man up I want to buy you a drink.
Unionists must be getting right panicked now; the whole cybernat thing is just a joke. Next they’ll be going to tell the head teacher.
Was thinking about the whole EU thing still being dragged up, e.g. at FMs Q’s again. It’d odd that they keep pushing that even after Dave’s wee speech. It’s almost as if they’re being told to push it, maybe by the very same people who are setting them up for a big fall. Next Tory Torpedo?
Westminster will have to reveal any advice on the EU it has received from Brussels or ask for that at some point. Don’t do this and you encourage a Yes vote, do it and you encourage a Yes vote too. I wonder if Dave will relent just at the right moment to shaft Labour once again. After all, he’s got little hope for 2015 if Scotland’s still around and if he does win, Scotland’s off anyway! Catch 22. Better get rid of Scotland before the next GE; clean break.
There is a small problem with some independence supporters posting abusive messages about the Union/Unionists/opposition politicians.
On the other hand, there is a HUGE problem with opposition politicians, the mainstream media, pundits and celebrities, and the UK Government itself making abusive statements about Scotland and the Scottish people as a mere matter of routine. Particularly about our aspirations for full self-government.
There is a massive power disparity between the two groups, but this goes unrecognised. The first is considered bad and poisonous in the debate, the second is just the normal state of affairs.
Why?
If the story is true, which it will turn out not to be, it would make me glad I am not actually a member of the SNP or the official Yes Campaign, so I can go on saying whatever I like as the situation requires.
I make whatever pittance I earn by hosting Creative Writing workshops in community centres etc. A very popular topic is blogging, especially for folk who’re not too confident, and the single most important point I try to get them to take away is –
‘Keep it simple. Keep it civil.’
From what I’ve seen of this and the other pro-Indy sites, I think we do.
HenBroon You could at least have put up a warning for those of a weak heart and disposition not to open the link . I almost choked on my falsers at the hideous thing that I was subjected to.
Bill McLean says:” I would suggest that the best thing we “cybernats” can do is completely ignore the MSM. If you must post be polite. That way we will win. ”
Ignoring the MSM is the surest way to defeat. How do we get the message out to the low-information voters we need to win this campaign? They’re not going to be coming to websites like this – they don’t do that sort of thing, they don’t care enough.
We need the numbers and they comprise the numbers when it comes to being uncommitted and potentially persuadable. The ONLY way we can reach them in sufficient numbers, persuade them, and most importantly, get them to go vote, is via the mass media.
I’m sure the YES campaign is doing a great job with their ground game. The problem is that for that door to door technique to work this virgin-voter cohort has to be primed to be receptive to canvassers overtures. The way to reach them is via simple messaging rinsed and repeated ad nauseam.
So in practice we need here a fair shake from popular-press (high circulation within the target demographic) and from broadcast media, specifically (because of its ubiquity and the trust ordinary folks still have in their political reporting and analyses) the BBC.
As for getting the cybernattery to be gentlemen and ladies in online fora – good luck with that. There are issues and principles of considerable moment at stake here, and both sides have apassion for their cause. Politics is a contact sport and it always has been, in every society in every era. We are constantly assaulted by the “Wee Eck looks like Shrek”, “is a fat bar steward”, brigade, but their attacks carry no weight.
Our arguments in contrast, ARE effective because they are imbued with that great asset, THE TRUTH. That is why these pols and Journos bleat and whine when they are engaged. We hurt them because we strip them of their hubris and leave them exposed and vulnerable. My considered response when these hypocrites is, ma-up and grow a pair.
Make no mistake, this IS a street fight and if we go into it all Marquis of Queensbury, we’re going to get severely gubbed.
They don’t care enough, Bill McLean say
I would suggest that anyone accused of being a Cybernats direct their accuser to ‘the void’ where they can experience real vitriol directed at their westminster government
Something that was brought up on Newsweek this morning with Derek Bateman was ‘Cruel Britain’ by and how we have knowingly been involved in torture all of the last century and beyond beggars belief.
It seems my earlier defence of Calum Cashley was, shall we say, premature. Perhaps unfounded. I naturally assumed that the article by Magnus Gardham in The Herald was lies. In particular, the second poaragraph,
“A group of respected party activists, with a high-profile presence on social media, has begun policing offensive comments on blogs and social networking site Twitter.”
I was earlier involved in a Twitter exchange during which Cashley unblocked me long enough to assure me that the article is entirely accurate – which must be a first for Magnus Gardham. I had clearly developed a very wrong impression of the guy who turns out to be a supercilious, sanctimonious arse of precisely the type who would consider himself qualified to be the self-appointed arbiter of what it is appropriate for SNP members to post on social media.
It would be easy to laugh of such self-righteous pomposity. But Cashley has led me to believe that he and his “posse” have the blessing of the party. Which is just about the most offensively stupid thing I’ve ever heard of the SNP doing. To officially sanction a group such as is described is to acknowledge and accept responsibility for anything that is posted in the name of the SNP – genuinely or otherwise.
All of which is quite apart from the inherent offensiveness of the implied attempts at censorship.
It may be that Cashley is puffing himself up with his tales. I sincerely hope so. Because if he is not then I will feel obliged to consider very carefully my association with the Scottish National Party. I am not happy about this. Not happy at all.
What does he think he’s going to do? I’m only posting under my first name. How would he know who I am, or that I’m a party member? I could be posting under any one of a number of screen names. Who is he going to contact if one if them says something he doesn’t like?
And what is he going to do when the majority of people he contacts simply ignore him?
Are there any among us with a connection to the SNP who could confirm or deny this?
I smell a rat waving a false flag.
@Christian Wright –
Good stuff. Maybe the reality lies somewhere between your and Bill’s position because what, for some, is civility/good manners doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with language-use.
I can’t remember where I saw this (it was in an essay about Jim Kelman, possibly in Chapman, Edinburgh Review, one of those mags) and the writer was relating a memory of school, where she was asked by her teacher what sparked a fight and she said ‘Miss, she called me a fucking C-O-W’.
That rings true for me, and I don’t know if it’s a British/Scottish or specifically Weegie thing, but when I was at school (in Glasgow) that was one word which NO guy, however gallus, would ever use against any girl. ‘Bitch’ was another. I’m no prude, but even now, when those words are so common (eg in the names of products in the supermarket – ‘Skinny Cow’, ‘Spoiled Pig’ etc etc) I have to be extremely vexed before using them, and when I do, it really means something, if only to me.
Perhaps we have to adapt our language according to who we’re speaking to, but it’s impossible to cover all bases.
It’s a problem, but an interesting one.
Cashley is now on Twitter saying that the article claiming that he’s trying to “silence” people is accurate and true, but that he’s not trying to silence people. Forked tongue?
@Peter A Bell –
I don’t ‘tweet’, but I did click on the guy’s name in Rev Stu’s article here, and saw your exchange with him. I find those truncated statements quite hard to follow, but if his response conveyed the truth? It seems he’s claiming he was just ‘out with some friends’?? So, he was out having a latte, and, somehow or other, the SNP hierarchy blessed the proceedings? Please flesh out the details a little, if you don’t mind – if you’re upset then it must be serious right enough.
Sounds to me like he’s blowing it out his southern end, and enjoying the idea that others are watching him.
It’s a dilemma,that’s for certain.
On the one hand we have a duty to the campaign and to represent it in a dignified and civil manner and on the other hand we have our duty to what the Rev points out earlier-THE TRUTH.
If i have to call a spade a spade then i don’t know if i can restrain myself in the heat of the moment-especially when provoked(and do they provoke me!)
For instance,should Tavish Scott and the Lib Dems plough ahead with the Northern isles partition threats am i to dignify that by debating it civilly and politely,hiding my true feelings,or am i entitled to jump in and and call it how i see it by using loaded language like ‘betrayal’ ‘treachery’ ‘disgraceful’ ‘shameful’?
My comments tend to lack consistency in that i usually post either glorious,towering monuments of genius,absolutely crude,crass,inappropriate gutter humour or barbed insults aimed directly at someone.It all depends what i have read.
So to me,i shall continue to react naturally until i get the knock on the door from the SNP goon squad.
The rest of you i recommend you use your conscience as well.
I should make it clear that it is not Cashley’s posturing that is of concern to me. It is the claim, or implication, that the “policing” described in the Herald article is sanctioned by the SNP.
My first instinct was to conclude that Magnus Gardham had made that up. But now Cashley, who has some status in the party, is telling us that the article is entirely accurate. Including the stuff about “silencing” party members.
But while insisting that the article is true, he also insists that he is not doing what the article says he is doing. If that makes no sense it’s because there’s no sense to it.
And while insisting the “silencing” part is both true and untrue, he does not contradict the stuff that implies the “group” is operating with the approval of the party.
@M4arkyboy –
‘Goon Squad’ is a nice one. I suspect that IF such a thing exists, and IF they make any attempt to censor anyone who posts here, they’ll soon get a pretty graphic demonstration of just how far some of can step away from the civil discourse we’ve been conducting thus far.
It’s a worrying development – here’s hoping someone senior in SNP knocks it on the head, one way or another, and makes sure it’s done as quickly and publicly as possible.
If it is the SNP’s policy then it is mental and Orwellian. If it turns out to be true then the SNP leadership have shown a complete lack of backbone as well. I think it is still to early to say though. It would need to be confirmed. It would be a very odd thing to do.
My membership of the S.N.P is due for renewal and if this is true then I will have to consider wether I want to renew it . The one thing we have to watch out for is the agent provocateur within the party . Most of us are aware of the dirty tricks used by the establishment over the years and it is reasonable to suspect that they will have agents high up within the party ready to drop a bombshell at the appropriate time . I am not saying that Cashley is anything other than what he says he is but we need the S.N.P to clarify things A.S.A.P .
Christian – historically it was a fact that when Britain was faced with discontent or nationalistic movements in the past they used, as a first resort, to demean the opposition by the very means that they are using against us. They did it particularly strongly in Cyprus, Malaya, Kenya, South Africa and of course Ireland. That is where they build their attack from. Many people are attracted to the SNP and hopefully independence by what they see as a decent party and an honourable aim. Now, you are entirely entitled to be cynical – I am about almost anything to do with Britain – but I still believe that the best way is to ignore them and their lies, don’t make money for them by responding to their trolls and by rising above their dishonesty and name- calling.
That is my opinion and that is how I will behave in this greatest of all campaigns for the future of our country. Good luck to all.
It just occurred to me that we are hardly going to sing their praises are we?
This isn’t a tickling match we are in here-we are fighting for the independence of our country.
The gloves should be off.
@Peter A Bell –
I’m not mischief-making here, but the fact that you seem so concerned about this is making me very very worried about it – you clearly know an awful lot more about all this stuff than most of us would even be able to catch-up on.
Is there anything more that we here, on this thread, right now, should know? I mean, in practical terms – being able/prepared to contact whoever we have to by way of clarification etc?
I’ve been following the tweets as far as I can, am aware that Rev Stu has been pushing him hard – the longer he stalls, the more this gets a bit stinky.
I’ve got James Brown on here, and he’s singing ‘Too Funky In Here.’
‘Open up the window y’all!!’
Does the fact that The Herald reached for the Cybernats perennial as a front page not betray the fact that the MSM are short of ammunition at the moment? The fact that Electoral Commission report in particular was a non-event has clearly left some empty column inches and given that the arguments over process have gone as a result of the Section 30, then there is very little to “attack” with at present.
A number of the stock scare stories have been largely spiked over the past few months (by the No side themselves) and I’m unsure how the unremitting negativity of the type seen in the Herald and Scotsman can be sustained without resorting to the type of the drivel seen today – ie, the type of story that only excites people in the political bubble and will have zero effect on the overall debate.
My own feeling is that this may have reached the stage where some senior figure in the SNP is going to have to make it clear that, whatever Cashley and his pal Gardham claim, there is no officially sanctioned effort to “police” the social media.
Cashley has made a right hash of this. In part by trying to inflate his own role and responsibilities. In part by unthinkingly vouching for the veracity of Gardham’s article.
If this is not cleared up then the unionist media are going to start holding the SNP responsible for every distasteful utterance that appears to come from a party member or supporter. It is all too easy to imagine headlines such as,
SNP TWITTER POLICE FAIL TO STOP ABUSE!
Cashley has stupidly linked such abuse directly to the party. The man’s a pompous fool!
A separate issue altogether is the question of censorship. Or what will be perceived by many in the party as precisely what The Herald claims and Cashley confirms, an effort to “silence” party members. It matters not at all that there really is no way for Cashley and his “group” to do this. Simply stating the intention is enough to get people’s backs up.
It’s not a hugely damaging situation. But it could become so if it is not squashed unequivocally right now. And it was all so unnecessary. Caused entirely by Cashley’s self-righteous arrogance.
I am scratching my head at the interactions between Calum and Wings on twitter at the moment. In essence:
Wings: “are you silencing people?”
Calum: “No.”
Wings: “so the article saying you are silencing people is wrong?”
Calum: “No.”
Swello said:
The fact that Electoral Commission report in particular was a non-event has clearly left some empty column inches and given that the arguments over process have gone as a result of the Section 30, then there is very little to “attack” with at present.
The Electoral Commission report and its aftermath should have been the inception of some absolutely blistering column-inches about hypocrites who demand that their opponents commit to full acceptance of a report, sight-unseen, then refuse to accept the same report once they have seen it.
But they wouldn’t print that, would they?
@Morag –
Who could/would/should have written them?
It could be tactical. The SNP make some kind of announcement that they will attempt to prevent their members making any abusive or offensive posts, knowing fine well that this is both impractible and unnecessary. Meanwhile the unitrolls of the various other parties rampage on unckecked, with no visible effort from their leadership to rein them in. It could make the SNP look like the good guys who want a fair and balanced debate, while the No camp and Better Together go on tacitly endorsing the deranged and multiplying rants of various British supremacists and 18th century loyalists, as well those of bog-standard Labour party trolls.
Problem is, as Peter said, this would officially sanction the view that the SNP is somehow responsible for the posts of all independence supporters – a perception that the media and opposition parties have been keen to promote.
Frankly, I think this is all rubbish. We’re starting at shadows. I have no intention of accepting any warnings or instructions concerning my social media behaviour unless they come from an elected officer of the SNP or Yes campaign or from someone with clearly delegated and transparent authority. If any such emerge, I’ll be sure to let you know. I sniff an old tactic here, which is to ‘inform’ you that there’s a secret policeman in your midst and watch happily while everyone starts to distrust each other.
Vronsky at 5.27pm
….with such a ranting and aggressive response I can see this is not a place to enjoy posting. Pity, as I would have thought new people would have been made a bit more welcome.
“Pity, as I would have thought new people would have been made a bit more welcome.”
I can’t find a word of the post in question that’s in any way belligerent towards you.
Calum Cashley could have calmly explained his reasoning and given clarity on the original story and put it to bed hours ago. He is instead dragging it out and seemingly enjoying the whole affair. This is going to run into next week now.
Real people want to know WTF is going on….genuine disbelief and confusion.
@TootsCapoot
Welcome. Nice to meet you.
There are rockets attached to every cause, political party, football club and organisation who have ever inhabited our earth. Strangely they don’t all support Independence for Scotland.
Without wishing to diminish the effect of the more exubarent “cybernats” there is more bile from supposedly proper journalists refering to our elected government as a dictatorship, Kim Jong, Nazi’s, Mussolini,Il Duce,Stalin and many others similar.
Even worse, some of these insults have been aimed by Labour politicians – who have the balls to claim the cybernats should be silenced!
“Calum Cashley could have calmly explained his reasoning and given clarity on the original story and put it to bed hours ago. He is instead dragging it out and seemingly enjoying the whole affair.”
This is why I’m still in the discussion. There are only three possible explanations for his behaviour so far as I can see, and I’m trying to work out which it is, out of professional curiosity.
(a) He’s pissed and/or a complete twat who just likes winding people up for fun, and on this occasion has chosen people on his own side as his targets.
(b) He’s deliberately trying to antagonise Yes activists whose approach he disagrees with, in the hopes that they’ll give up in frustration or anger.
(c) Actually, just two possible explanations.
The SNP are as entitled as fuck to tell SNP members how to conduct themselves on official comms channels.
What’s shit is to then go to the media and start talking about the abuse coming from non-party members – leaving the old ripe cybernat chestnut available for the media, to deflect from the story that one of their own fucked up…
If someone’s posting anti-english tweets on an SNP twitter account then the SNP should rightly shut them down. But, if their response is to blame it on ‘cybernats’ in the press and and consequently insult pro-independence supporters online then, then i’m almost at the point where if the SNP don’t sort them out then the SNP can fuck right off.
I get that they’re veteran campaigners and canvassers, but if that’s where they think the recent years rises in SNP support have exclusively come from, and that the online push from members and non-members alike hasn’t been a huge factor then they are fools.
I can vote yes now without the SNP. If the tender sensitivities of journalists are the primary concern of people like Chris Jones and Calum Cashley, then the SNP are bust already.
Rev,
I’ll give you a third option.
(c) He has come down on SNPdunblane like a ton of bricks, press got hold of the story, asked Calum for his side and he has over egged his importance and dragged the SNP into the story. He has continued to dodge answering simple questions.
He should have put his hands up hours ago and said sorry things got a bit out of control.
Just saw Cashley’s last couple of tweets – apparently despite the traffic, Rev Stu’s site and articles don’t count as activism.
Seems like you can’t be an activist promoting indy unless you do it like Calum, it’s all getting a bit Higgins-esque here…
Chris Jones appears to be trying to spin any criticism Cashley’s recent media contribution as defence of anti-english sentiment. God knows it’s easier to call those who suport your own aims as ‘hard of thinking’ ‘conspiracy theorists’ than fess up to deflecting flak into your allies.
Really!?… wtf is going on…
No need for confusion. What has happened is quite simple. Cashley has made a serious gaffe. He has spoken to one of his pals in the press giving credibility to a story claiming that the SNP has set up a social media “policing group” for the purpose of “silencing” people. There are two issue with this. The obviously sensitive matter of censorship. And the fact that the existence of such a group, sanctioned by the party, would be tantamount to an admission that the party is responsible for online abuse perpetrated by those purporting to be party members or supporters.
Later, when challenged about this on Twitter, Cashley was too arrogant to admit any error. He could have defused the whole situation by saying that The Herald had got it wrong. Heaven knows, that would have been easy enough for people to believe. Instead, he insisted that everything in the article is true. Or, to use his own words, “credible and accurate”. But while stating that the article was true, he continued to deny what it says. This is where it does get a bit confusing due to the doublethink.
The article says, among other things, that,
SENIOR Nationalists have launched a crackdown on so-called “cybernats” who use the internet to abuse and attack political opponents.
A group of respected party activists, with a high-profile presence on social media, has begun policing offensive comments on blogs and social networking site Twitter.
The headline also uses the word “silence” – as a verb – and Calum Cashley is named in association with this “policing group”.
Cashley says that all of this is true, but he denies what it says. For example, he confirms as “credible and accurate” the article’s claims about efforts to silence people. But denies that there is any effort to silence people. Go figure!
I was not alone in wondering why this piece appeared on the front page. Now I realise that it was there to provide a basis for further articles with headlines such as,
FURY AT SNP ATTEMPTS TO SILENCE PARTY MEMBERS
We will start to find these appearing in newspapers and blogs today. In fact, I’ve already seen one. But I won’t link to it because the author is a complete nutter.
I wonder how the papers will spin this
Or he’s shot his silly mouth off to one of his pals in the unionist press and is now in denial about having made a right coo’s pisser of things.
Smile and wave boys,smile and wave.
Predictably, the usual suspects have all rallied round Cashley, defending him from nasty cybernats such as the good Rev and Mr Bell. We’ve even had the likes of Kate Higgins, after accepting she got it wrong over issues such as Salmond’s criticisms of the Supreme Court, reverting back to victim mode and playing to the gallery, citing the occasions when her spoutings weren’t just accepted as perceived wisdom and people called her out on her views.
Unfortunately, I doubt that Cashley realises that when even the likes of @Jamie4Labour are defending you from people agitating for the same cause, you need to accept that there’s more than a faux pas in the works. The herald will use this “in-fighting” in a future story and if Cashley doesn’t realise that I’d question his worth to the both the SNP and the wider Yes Campaign.
Now I accept that this could be some amazingly brilliant strategic set-up to hang the antis, yet again, on their own petard but it is looking increasingly less likely. Mr Bell’s analysis could be pretty much on the money. It’ll be interesting to see how this “story” is reported and subsequently develops over the coming days.
I doubt it’ll develop at all. What’s the story? Calum Cashley made a tit of himself and some people on the internet had a pretty uneventful and unremarkable difference of opinion. Well, hold the front page.
The most extraordinary thing was that at one point even Kate Higgins was forced to come to my defence, so completely had Cashley lost the plot. But it would be a massive overstatement of the importance of ANY of the participants to imagine that this is a news story.
I see good old Margaret Curran is playing the victim on Twitter, complaining about abuse. This is quite surreal as Curran has the notorious quote to her name about not caring if Salmond got run over by a bus…Then there are her colleagues who have called Salmond a dictator. Quite incredible lack of self-awareness from the ermine chaser. While I am against people abusing politicians on Twitter, I wish they could see their own breathtaking hypocrisy.
“Predictably, the usual suspects have all rallied round Cashley, defending him from nasty cybernats such as the good Rev and Mr Bell”
Mm. If I’d doubted my position at any point, all I had to do was look and see who was on the other side: Longshanker, Crazy Commando-Fetish Gemma, Euan McColm, George Foulkes, various Labour goons… I think I’d rather have even the most swivel-eyed “cybernat” on my team than a vile collection of “Unitrolls” like that.
The SNP and their supporters have been policing ‘cybernats’ for a while now. I used to contribute daily to Newsnet Scotland up until a year ago. Then there was a crackdown on amount of and length of comments. Fair enough you may have thought, but then it was content that started being censored. Again, fair dos, if it was offensive or outrageous. But I was silenced for comments such as : being critical of the SNP’s policies ,for describing Orangemen as ‘ragged arse Tories’ and for supporting public demos against the BBC. Lately my comments on the editorial censorship of the site itself been wiped. Many other more erudite and entertaining contributors were discouraged and edited into oblivion. Now the site is a mere husk of what it was , policed by politically correct zealots, with almost none of the early great contributors present, with one or two honourable exceptions. It angers me that this anally retentive mindset of suppressing any dissent from official SNP ‘do-nothing’ doctrine on Brit-Nat invective is self-harming the big picture of the collective strategy of fighting the cause. Fortunately Wingsland.podgamer which is a great and openly honest site exists and has given succour to this particular Independence supporting refugee, and long may it prosper!
I fear you are mistaken. Cashley’s claims of an SNP social media policing group will be referred to by unionists every time the party denies responsibility for some piece of online misconduct.
For those who missed it, here’s a wee bit more flesh on the bones of what AS used in FMQs – another interesting ‘social media’ exchange we should be mindful of:
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/6682-private-online-discussion-shows-level-of-scottish-labour-despair-over-snp-poll-success
I smell a great victory here for Magnus Gardham. Why are we even discussing this? The Rev has the right of it. “What’s the story”, indeed. We are giving a bourach the oxygen of publicity.
I’m with Lochside on his piece above. Newsnet sadly is losing it. I’m now blocked on Newsnight for a harmless little joke about bushes and pansies being appropriate components of a redesign of George Square following Mr Mathieson’s possibly illicit liason in the back of a car in Linn Park. The NewsNet police probably take this as proof of homophobia. It’s not. It’s a joke. Just like Rory and Dino in Mrs Brown’s Boys.
Why should any section of our multifaceted human condition think it should be immune from a good natured poke in the ribs. I used to be an altar boy FGS.
But it also has to be pointed out that Newsnet Scotland has led the field in combatting an overwhelming unionist bias in the media – and NEWSNET is not run by the SNP
More to the point.
Has anybody else read Aamer Anwar’s marvelous column in today’s Sun?
Should be given the widest possible distribution.
I am a member of the SNP.
No-one from that organisation has ever communicated with me to say what I should write, or what I should not.
Frankly, I would leave the SNP if they tried to do that, for freedom of speech, with the normal caveats, is what I believe in.
That is the point of t’internet. It allows us to make idiots of ourselves, or alternatively be a bit good.
I have made huge mistakes in written format, but I have been right more than I have been wrong.
An example of wrong:
I suggested elsewhere that the LGBC hadn’t a scooby about who their friends and enemies were. I mis-phrased it and lost a few potential converts.
It is, apparently not kosher to refer indirectly, and I apologise for that, to the EDL as anti-gay. Which they most certainly are. As are the National Front. But you’d have to believe I knew that. It was not obvious. So, a huge mistake. I have to tell the LGBT community that certain English groups hate them. My mistake.
That was the point I failed to make properly.
My post just sounded like an anti-gay rant.
The generality that right wing UK politics has an issue with gays, and I appeared to subscribe to it was, unfortunately, rather obvious and completely untrue.
More fool me.
As far as I know, the SNP is a tad more realistic about sexuality, so hearing a gay rant from someone that was anti-independence, was well, enough to send me off on one.
I will apologise on their web site, once I recall what their web site actually is. But the author still has a lot of growing up to do.
Just saying.
Ms Lamont, as a concerned citizen, will doubtless raise the Calum Cashley censuring issue at FM Question Time and Alex Salmon will have no difficulty in dismissing her “concerns”.
It would be a tedious waste of QT time and so suit Labour nicely.
Calum Cashley would do well to clarify the issue directly ASAP, either on NewsnetScotland where has previously submitted articles or here on Wings.If he will not then the SNP should disassociate themselves with him and his statements pronto.
Reference Lochside’s statement that the SNP and its supporters have been policing cybernats for a while now – they do not appear to be policing them here on WOS? I agree that NewsnetScotland has become a bit “arid” yet it still contributes well with many interesting articles. perhaps Newsnet is aiming to set itself more as a newspaper than a blog. I reckon WOS and Newsnetscotland dovetail quite neatly.
Public bar and lounge bar if you like.
Another one who has failed to recognise the import of Gardham’s article and Cashley’s claims. It will dawn eventually.
velofello I do like your analysis of the difference between W.O.S and newsnetscotland , each one in their own way are helping us on our way to victory in 2014 .
I read most of the tweets on the WOS thread. I am no more clear about Calum Cashley and his views than I was before I read them. Perhaps Calum Cashley has a point? Perhaps he would like to use a few more characters to elucidate what his point is here?
For, so far, it reads like mince.
Peter
If you think we don’t understand the intention behind Gardham’s article you misunderstand.
And if you think we don’t understand the cleverness of our enemy you misunderstand also.
I still believe the most useful reaction to Gardham’s article and Cashley’s efforts are to publicly ignore them.
Dave,
It is far better, IMHO, to face something down than ignore it. Incidentally, I have no idea how publicy ignoring something actually works. What are we supposed to not do? And how does that change anything?
Publicly ignoring stuff works very well in lots of political circumstances, or rather better often than dealing with them publicly. I didn’t suggest not dealing them.
Dave,
Some examples of ignoring stuff as a working idea would be really useful. I am vaguely aware of that idea working in Eastern Europe before the fall of communism. Although it seemed more of a not ignoring idea, when you looked at it.
You can ignore the Gardham article until your arse drops off, it won’t make it disappear. It will still be serving its nefarious purpose months from now. Every time the SNP disowns some gobbet of online abuse, the British nationalists will be falling over each other in the clamour to quote Cashley’s “revelation” of a party “policing group” acting for the SNP in an effort to “silence” errant views.
While you are busy thrashing them with your disdain and pummelling them with devastating disregard, they will revel in the opportunity to point out that the SNP has officially taken responsibility for anything their opponents choose to identify as “abusive cybernattery”.
This will still happen even if the SNP does as it surely should and disowns Cashley’s idiotic claims entirely and immediately. But at least the claims of SNP cyber-police patrolling the social media and slapping down unapproved comment will not have the kind of credibility that the terminally arrogant Cashley has so foolishly afforded them.
Who is this Calum Cashley anyway? We, the SNP I mean, should disown this rubbish. I will chuck my membership if anyone tells me what to write or think.
Honestly. I would like to know this chaps’ status in the SNP.
As far as I am aware, Calum Cashley continues to be employed as a policy adviser to Alyn Smith MEP.
Do policy advisers have advisers?
Wee small fleas
Have smaller fleas
Upon their backs to bite ’em
And on their backs are pure toty wee fleas
And so ad infinitum
If I post something online, and I state I am writing it on behalf of the SNP, then I guess that organisation has a right to complain, if what I write is too strong. If however, I write online as an individual, then the likes of Calum Cashley can take a run and jump for all I care if they don’t like it. None of his freaking business
It strikes me, that some in the SNP are mind bogglingly naive regarding the way in which the media in Scotland behaves. This latest nonsense (for that is what it is), merely gives succour to the unionists making fatuous, fake accusations on a near hourly basis about so-called ‘cybernat abuse’. If the SNP, or more specifically Calum Cashley wish to voluntarily stick their noggin in the noose set by the unionist cabal and their media chums than good luck to them (Him).
Most online comments are nothing to do with the SNP, and it beggars belief that the SNP would wish to demonstrate some kind of voluntary culpability, all the while pretending that it is within their power to actually do something about it.
Personally, whilst I have enjoyed some writings by Calum in the past, in this instance, my opinion is he needs to put his ego back in its box, and get a grip on reality.
Perhaps Mr Cashley needs to read this;
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/alex-salmond-dictator-comparison-bingo/
I presume Calum is working on his ‘tale’ for his boss when he gets to the office. For a policy advisor not really thinking through carefully what comes out his mooth isn’t a clever thing to do. I can imagine the SNP press officer with their head in hands saying ” and then you did WHAT” But to be honest I’ve never had any comms from party HQ about ‘policing’ the leadership would be dumb beyond beleif to do so and I don’t imagine for one minute they are that dumb. Basically kids, don’t post when yer pissed and try to wriggle out of it.
So, no-one of any real significance? It seems to me that his policy advice is more that a little bit flawed.
@tootscapoot
I apologise if you were offended by my post, it certainly wasn’t my intention to upset you. You’re quite right that I rant, but I’m a grumpy old man and it’s what I do and I can’t change now. If you’re new here, treat it like a pub you’ve walked into for the first time. There are a lot of interesting people sitting around and talking. You can easily ignore the old misanthrope and sit at another table. Welcome.
Vronsky
Misanthrope, perhaps not
Curmudgeon, possibly yes
Smiley thingy
@ Peter A Bell ref ” another who has failed to recognise the import of Gardham’s article and Casley’s claims..”;
Does any balanced person really believe that the SNP would set out to censure comments by members on letters to newspapers, internet sites etc? Such a strategy would surely rank alongside the fable of King Canute.
A few commentators here have declared their SNP membership and stated that they have not received any control instructions from the SNP on how they write to newspapers or contribute to internet sites. Me neither.I’m firmly in the freedom of expression camp and I do try not to make silly comments towards, or be abusive to others.
Calum Cashley must stand up and clarify his position.
If he has made an illconsidered statement he should withdraw it and without any smudging of the issue.
If he stands by his statement then he is wrong with respect of control over me, an SNP member, and by comments here several more SNP members. He needs to resign from the SNP- if he is indeed a member.
The SNP response hopefully? Apologise Calum or your out of the SNP.
And lets here it for Wings over Scotland.
Express your views, swear if you must, and keep your jouks up for the responses coming your way.
Refreshing clear air.
I am coming to this rather late and am genuinely confused. Whatever Casley claims, how in hell COULD the SNP, or anyone else for that matter (e.g. labour, libDem. Tory) control what posters post! It beggars belief. I am also an SNP member, and I WILL resign if they even suggest that they have a right to censor what I write in my personal capacity.
The fact that what Cashley claims is impossible really doesn’t matter. The declared intention to “silence” people is sufficient to do damage to the SNP. Of course, Cashley is lying. There is no formal “policing group” as he told The Herald. But that won’t stop unionists referring to his pompous posturing when they want to associate the party with online abuse.
Yeah. I’m a long-standing SNP member. I’m on permanent pre-moderation on both the Herald and NNS, but I’ve never had a word from the SNP about online conduct. I’ve never even seen a general directive or guidelines or anything like that.
Of rather more concern to me is the absolute certainty that there are among us some who will damage us quite deliberately as we move towards the referendum.
They have been among us for years, many of them masquerading as super Nats, as they get into positions of trust from which they can do us maximum damage.
It would be awfully useful if one or two could be found and exposed before we get to the critical period in the run-up to the referendum
Bill McLean says:
2 February, 2013 at 6:24 pm
From Scotsman 8th May 2012.“Dr Mark Shephard of Strathclyde University last month hosted a discussion in the House of Commons – “”Discourse on Scottish Independence – Politicians versus Publics””. Dr Shephard is in early stages of investigating social media comments on the Scottish independence debate to explore the nature of posts and their possible effects on behaviour. The findings, based on analysis of online comments under articles on independence, show the vast majority of posts are anti-SNP/independence and anti-Salmond rather than anti-English/anti-union. In terms of language, too, comments about the SNP and independence are mujch more vitriolic than about the union and UK.”
This just has to be a”EUREKA” moment in the battle . Please, someone , ensure that AS has this info with him as he approaches this week’s FMQ. JL will for sure raise the topic of Cybernats and allegations of BBC bias again as it’s now a substantive issue because the Herald says so, and her script writer will want to quote this. So imagine the reply from AS when he says:” you can quote your scriptwriter as much as you like Jahann-baby, but I’ll give you some independent research from SU which will deals with the FACTS”, not the Bitter Together fantasy you seem to prefer!” Yeh, I know I’m not being too realistic here but the serious point is allegations are being made the whole time about Cybernats and we seem powerless to counter them; here is scientific evidence which can and should be adduced until they realise the had better put up or shut up.