The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

A bunch of tw*ts

Posted on June 27, 2015 by

The Englishman who wades into Scottish politics on either side, especially if he lives in England, is probably taking a huge risk of being disagreed with vehemently, no matter what he says. Nevertheless, the explosion of interest into the so-called ‘Clypegate‘ list has a Data Protection angle that I cannot resist.


To summarise, it seems that the Scottish Labour Party have assembled a list of supporters of the Scottish National Party who have said things on Twitter and Facebook that the Scottish Labour Party do not like. The list – inevitably tagged a dossier – has been passed to the tabloids to stir up some kind of frenzy about the so-called ‘Cybernats’.

Some of the statements are fairly strong, but I don’t doubt worse things are spoken in the average pub conversation about politicians. I’m certain every term applied to Gordon Brown and Donald Dewar has also been said of Alex Salmond by Labour supporters. As someone who voted Labour in the recent election, I can think of a few more constructive things that the smouldering remnants of Labour in Scotland could be doing with their time, but this is what they decided to do, so we are where we are.

Now, if you were hoping for anything more in the way of politics, you’re going to be disappointed. From here on in, it’s ANORAK TIME!

The Data Protection Act has many requirements for the processing of data, but the chief hurdle is the first DP principle, which requires three things. The processing of personal data must be fair, lawful, and conditions must be met. Regular readers will know that consent is not required, as there are alternatives to consent in the lists of conditions. Let’s consider the three elements in turn;

FAIR: fair has two meanings. The use of data has to be fair in the dictionary sense of the word and it also has to be fair in the DP sense, which means the Data Controller (Labour) has to tell the subject (the SNP tweeter) how their data will be used unless an exemption applies. Many organisations believe that because personal data is in the public domain, it is fair game.

The Information Commissioner’s own guidance on personal data online stated in 2010 that this was not the case, and we have a very recent example (Samaritans Radar, which also focused on tweets) where the ICO stated that tweets were personal data (depending on their content), and so DP applied.

Labour fail on both counts. Gathering together tweets and providing them to a newspaper to name and shame the individuals is not fair in my opinion. But more importantly, Labour did not tell the subjects that their data would be used in this way. Clearly members of the Scottish Labour Party will look at what is being tweeted; they may analyse and try to counteract it.

If you don’t like the idea of people you don’t like reading your tweets, go private or stop tweeting. However, the conscious selection and specific analysis of a person’s tweets is processing personal data as is passing it to a newspaper, and none of the DP exemptions allows Labour to do this in secret.

The use of the data was not fair.

LAWFUL: this is a tricky one where I expect I will get little agreement, especially from people perhaps hoping to see Labour eviscerated. DP requires that data processing should not breach other relevant laws eg Human Rights privacy or confidentiality.

I do not believe that Labour’s use of the data was unlawful – Carina Trimingham’s Facebook account was pruriently raided by the Daily Mail so that they could make cheap jibes about her, but she still lost her Human Rights privacy case. Twitter and Facebook are not private places unless you lock your account. Get used to that.

CONDITIONS: DP requires that one of a prescribed set of conditions is met to justify the use of personal data, and one from a second list if the data is defined as ‘sensitive’. A person’s political opinions are sensitive data, so this means that Scottish Labour needed not one condition, but two.

The tricky part is usually the sensitive-data condition, but as it happens, I don’t think Labour have a problem here. One of the conditions for processing sensitive personal data is that the sensitive data has “been made public as a result of steps deliberately taken by the data subject‘. I think this box is ticked – the political opinions were tweeted out into a public forum by the subject.

But that’s not the problem. The problem is that a condition is also required from the first set, and here Labour are stuffed. They don’t have consent, a contract, a legal power or obligation, and they are not protecting anyone’s vital interests. The only condition left is ‘legitimate interests‘, where they have to claim that their legitimate interest in monitoring and publicising rude tweetersis not ‘unwarranted’ because of ‘prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject’.

I am not remotely convinced that monitoring of ordinary folk – even if they are supporters or members of a party – is a legitimate interest in this context.

I have registered to vote in the Labour leadership elections, and had to declare that I support the aims and values of the Labour Party. That was not an easy declaration to make, but I definitely don’t support any other party and I never have. If Labour wanted to find out whether I was in fact a Conservative or SNP supporter pretending to be Labour, and looked at my Twitter account to find out, I believe that would be a legitimate interest. They would still have a problem with fairness, and would have to tell me that this was going to happen (they didn’t).

I don’t believe the two situations are comparable however. But even if I did, even if Scottish Labour monitored their opponents legitimately, it’s impossible to argue that legitimate monitoring is not undermined by passing the data to journalists, especially as journalists are (under Section 32) virtually exempt from the Data Protection Act.

If the monitoring was done to identify genuine abuse and report it to Twitter or Facebook, I believe that would be legitimate and would not be unwarranted. But this all seems to be for PR and political point-scoring. I cannot read this as legitimate interests with no unwarranted harm.

There are other questions – does the dossier breach the DP requirement for accuracy for example? But we don’t need to get into that. Two significant breaches of the first principle are sufficient to say that Labour has breached the Act. That’s it.

The only remaining question is what should happen now. I believe Scottish Labour should stop in their tracks, grow up and apologise. If that doesn’t happen (and even if it does), this is a gift to their opponents that will undoubtedly result in complaints to the ICO. Regular readers will know that I am always sceptical that the ICO will stray outside their comfort zone of security fines, but it is open to them to issue either an enforcement notice stopping Labour from doing this, or (very unlikely) issue a penalty.

It is worth noting that by the time the ICO quietly disposed of complaints about the Samaritans, the charity had stopped their Radar project and may never restart it. Political parties are rarely so intelligent, and if the ICO are faced with an intransigent Labour response, not admitting that they have done wrong, anything is possible.

Much as I would like to see Labour pick themselves up and offer something more optimistic, it seems that they have instead blundered into another bruising debacle of their own design.


*Tim Turner is a Labour supporter and voter who runs a consultancy and blog about Data Protection and Freedom of Information laws. This piece was originally published there, and is reproduced with his permission.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 27 06 15 13:05

    A bunch of tw*ts | Politics Scotland |

  2. 27 06 15 14:17

    A bunch of tw*ts | Speymouth

84 to “A bunch of tw*ts”

  1. Tackety Beets says:

    FFS !

    Astonished !

  2. Karmanaut says:

    Thanks for that analysis, Tim.

    So, if I am understanding this correctly…

    If a Tory supporting newspaper like the Mail or Telegraph prints this information (that the Labour Party processed and then handed to them), then the DP implications would mean a serious blow to Labour, not to mention an embarassment, but the paper would be OK?

    It’s all starting to look like that scene at the end of “Life of Brian”, where the Judean People’s Front finally turn up.

  3. Proud Cybernat says:

    Given this ‘diddy dossier’ today, along with the vile cyber attacks (hackings) SNP and YES supporters are being subjected to (reported in today’s National), it seems the Establishment are upping their game, trying to drive indy supporters off using social media and the web in general.

    Hope you’re lsitening down there in GCHQ – it’s no’ gonnae work.

  4. Scott Borthwick says:

    Many thanks for that, Tim. Would this not also mean that the Labour Party (or whoever actually did it) were in breach of the DPA for outing Neil Hay as a fairly innocuous cybernat?

  5. Patrick Roden says:

    Oh dear!

    If this is what Labour Members are saying…

  6. Thepnr says:

    Labour and Better Together combined to do a lot worse than a breech of the Data Protection regulations during the referendum campaign. I can’t see them being too concerned now.

    They should though be concerned about the schizophrenic decisions being made by their advisors. They can’t stop scoring goals in their own net.

    I doubt now that any of these “abusive” tweets will appear in print. The damage though has already been done and once again it is Labour who will be hurting in Scotland.

    Will they ever learn?

  7. HandandShrimp says:

    Tackety Beets

    Even my astonished is astonished


  8. Chitterinlicht says:

    Thinking of getting me some pigeons, cyber pigeons.

    Good article thanks.

    It is like they are trying to define ‘nadir’ by their actions.

    All the folk I know who turned to SNP after decades of labour did so primarily because if how awful labour were and are.

    Being Tattletales won’t bring them back.

  9. Gallowglass says:

    Flood them with requests about personal information collected and held to date – everybody – request that they stop collecting your personal information and someone go to the ICO?

  10. desimond says:

    Has Iain Gray asked for an Offensive Behaviour at Keyboard Act yet?

  11. R-type Grunt says:

    Thank you Tim.

    The problem is still the media, not Labour.

  12. Iain Gray's Subway Lament says:

    You have to wonder how Kezia Dugdale’s Dodgy Dossier is going to affect their leadership contest.

    It’s a wide open goal for any journo looking to make a name for themselves and who isn’t a complete fool to ask every one of their leadership hopefuls..

    “Do you think making this list and giving it out to the press was a good use of scottish Labour’s time? Is this the direction you want to see scottish Labour take for the Holyrood campaign?”

    or indeed the hilarious and blindingly obvious

    “Have you ever swore or used strong language and do you think that makes you unfit to be the scottish Labour Leader or Deputy?”

    For that matter there’s a leadership election going on for the actual Labour leader in London. So how pleased do we think Andy Burnham and his pals would be to be asked any of those questions and questions about WHAT ON EARTH scottish Labour think they are doing??

    Here’s another good one for Burnhan and the rest..

    “Do you think senior Labour politicians should be compiling and handing out a list of another parties members to a paper like the Mail to then attack when the Daily Mail claimed Ed Miliband’s father was someone who “Hated Britain”?

    Let’s see just how fast Labour politicians all start to run away from Kezia Dugdale’s Dodgy Dossier now that the full lunatic stupidity of it has been exposed.

  13. MolliBlum says:

    Scott Borthwick (1:20):
    Yes, Neil Hay’s tweets were indeed pretty innocuous.
    But Andrew Neil was at it again in his recent growling interview with Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh – claiming that Hay had called all unionists “("Quizmaster" - Ed)s” when in fact he had merely re-tweeted a link to a satirical article containing that word in its headline. I really do despair sometimes.
    Does make you wonder, though, who went to the trouble of finding out who was behind that twitter feed, and why.

  14. Barontorc says:

    I cannot find a fault with this – other than the glaring fact that in today’s UK – laws are cynically manipulated into semantic challenge which then allows the inevitable ‘establishment solution’ where might over right wins the day.

    When it comes to law enforcement just see how the 19 September thuggism was dealt with and you see the heavy hand pulling strings.

    We, in Scotland are being stuffed by this system – I take no side with what is happening outside Scotland – that has to be left to those who are affected and who need to deal with it, but the UK establishment’s abuse of our human and civil rights is now rotting away every fabric of our society.

    The legal system is not only prepared to support what’s happening, but the enforcement of a UK Supreme Court over our Scots’ legal process is an attempt to disempower even that authority.

    Given this background, there is no way such vested interests would permit a ‘fair’ referendum, nor would it premit a whitewash GE return from Scots. See the moral charade that is now the Carmichael ‘leak’ case and you touch the tenaticles of UK establishment power.

    So, yet again, make your own mind up.

  15. Donald MacKenzie says:

    I’d suggest that all they’re doing is driving more and more people into the ‘Yes’ camp for the next referendum, which may well come sooner rather than later, given that
    this sort of nonsense is also ensuring that Labour are going to disappear in Scotland. I just wonder who’s advising them that this makes sense and will work to their advantage.

  16. Martin says:

    You truly are a genius Rev. How you have time to read and assimilate all of the information you do, is beyond me. We’ll done.

  17. James Dow says:


  18. jimnarlene says:

    Cheers Tim, interesting analysis.
    Labour are on a shoogly peg, not Scottish Labour though;as they don’t exist.

  19. Pam McMahon says:

    Hope everyone on this weird list writes (either individually or collectively) to complain to the ICO about the misuse of their personal data by the Labour Party.

  20. heedtracker says:

    “The only remaining question is what should happen now. I believe Scottish Labour should stop in their tracks, grow up and apologise. ”

    So what? SLabour’s given their dossier to the likes of the Daily Heil and these horrific characters know exactly how to use it. The Times still has “Scotland to cancel queen funding” leader online.

  21. chris kilby says:

    Yeah, this SO isn’t going to blow up in their glaekit faces like everything else Labour does. (Can I say “glaekit”?) Great way to win back all those supporters who have deserted them: “Vote Labour or we’ll clype you up to The Mail/Polis.” Brilliant. Which political genius dreamt this one up do you think?

    As if it wasn’t bad enough that Labour has betrayed itself, its principles and the people of Scotland, now it does this! Just when I thought Labour couldn’t be more hated in Scotland than they already are. No-one likes a grass. Truly beyond belief.

    Just to point out the obvious as countless people no doubt already have by now, if television is the idiot’s lantern, the internet is the eejit’s megaphone. Every online debate on every subject no matter how trivial, every thread on every forum on every website always attracts zoomers, heidbangers and trolls like flies round a bucket of… like flies round a bucket. They’re like the weather and just as depressing.

    Inevitably YES!/the SNP has its fair share of them just as NO!/the Unionist side has. Yes, even Labour. Ian “Nazi Scum!” Smart and Yvonne Hama (remember her?) spring immediately to mind. As does the notorious “Fifi La Bonbon.” And we’ve all heard the embarrassing rumours about who she really is…

    It really is the most disingenuous cobblers to suggest that somehow the pro-independence side of the argument has a monopoly on these willfully obnoxious eejits. And insultingly disingenuous cobblers at that. Unsurprisingly it’s the good old Daily Mail which is really running with this when its online forums harbour the biggest trolls of all.

    Vomit-inducing. Even by their debased, hypocritical standards.

  22. Ewan Kennedy says:

    The article is a most welcome, reasoned analysis that brings a rational element to this strange affair.

    My only concern is with the statement that this has been done by something called the Scottish Labour Party, partly because that does not exist as a legal entity and also because of the difficulties there always are in imputing the actions of individuals to corporate bodies.

    I understand that the author may have been identified and suggest that any complaints and legal steps would be best taken addressed to that person.

  23. caz-m says:

    Our Tory Westminster masters have told us that in the not too distant future they will be cutting Government spending by £30Billion pounds, £12Billion of which is Welfare payments.

    And what plans have Scottish Labour drawn up to counter these cuts?

  24. Brian Powell says:

    Inadvertently this kind of attack (from Labour particularly) is turning out to be useful.

    We wouldn’t have such a powerful examination of the BBC as documented in G A Ponsenby’s book, London Calling or Prof John Robertson’s academic study, turned into book form and to be published in September.

    Would we have had Stuart Hardy’s Scotland’s Future History, which looks at Scottish history from Scotland’s point of view and not as part of some other country’s history?

    I thought for a long time we needed a new history of Scotland, not only over the centuries but over the last 60 year since the war.

    It’s only since the Curriculum for Excellence, introduce in 2011, that Scottish History was taught in schools.

    Labour’s attacks are exposing its myths about itself to the public.

  25. Brian Powell says:

    Apology, Stuart McHardy.

  26. Lollysmum says:

    Thanks for that Tim.

    I am a Data Controller, the person in my organisation ultimately responsible for the way we gather data, store it safely (password protected) & use it. We have to get consent of the Data subject before we create any form of record whether paper or computerised.We also need a separate consent to share that information.

    How /why we use that data has to be recorded on our registration with the Office of the Information Commissioner.

    The Data Protection Act is one of the most powerful tools at our disposal & the powers of the ICO often transcend those of an incumbent governing party as we have seen recently with ICO taking DWP to court to release information in the public interest i.e. numbers of people who have died within 6 weeks of a Work Capability Assessment for benefits.

    The ICO can be your friend as in this case where Labour has stepped way outside the boundaries of what is considered acceptable & then passed it on to the press for the sole reason of ensuring the breaches continue by promulgating the data further & wider in their own political interest.

    I’d like to see Blair McDougall talk his way out of this one. I’d also suggest that everyone on the list a)asks Labour for a copy of all the information that they hold on you in any of their systems (that includes not just databases but any document you have been mentioned in-emails, notes etc & b) reports the breach of your personal data to ICO.

    For my part, I’ve decided I need to keep practising as I didn’t make the list 🙁

  27. Itchybiscuit says:

    Just a thought folks, but isn’t it time that someone with the skill-set to do so, finally made a watertight connection between the Deputy Dawg and a certain on-line persona?

    I refer of course to none other than the French sweetie or ‘bon-bon’.

    Wouldn’t THAT hole this whole SLab endeavour below the waterline (see what I did there? Endeavour, waterline?) ;o)

  28. Ken500 says:

    Labour are breaking the Law again. Labour Party members are questioning what the Labour Party is doing. The few that are left.

    If any newspaper publishes the list they can be sued.

    Another fine mess.

  29. Iain Gray's Subway Lament says:

    Here’s an instructive tweet to consider after Dugdale’s Dodgy Dossier.

    Kezia Dugdale ?@kdugdalemsp Jun 21 Edinburgh, Scotland

    Under my leadership, no-one will be in any doubt what @scottishlabour stands for and who we stand with.

    Well if we didny ken before then we ken fucking noo, don’t we Kez? 😀

  30. Dr Jim says:

    11.432 + Kit +Complete

  31. Stoker says:

    Tim’s article above refers to the Labour Party but did i not read on the other thread that it’s McPoodle who is behind this?

    I don’t even know if he is a member of said Party or is acting on their orders/behalf etc or just as the twisted bitter muck spreader he is.

    So, on that basis, would Slabber not be able to wriggle themselves
    free from these Keystone Kop capers? Genuine question btw!

  32. Dr Jim says:

    Is this not incitement?
    Is Alan Cochrane A Telegraph Troll then?
    Fraser Nelson? I don’t like him

    Och there’s too many

  33. icyspark says:

    The vulture journalists are pecking away at this

  34. Iain Gray's Subway Lament says:

    Looks like the Sunday Herald are the first to load the shotgun and point it at their feet.

    One of their hapless teaboys is running about on twitter right now demanding those on Dugdale’s Dodgy Dossier tell him if they stand by their tweets.

    Journalism!! 😮 Ye ken. 😉

  35. crazycat says:

    @ Stoker

    Not really an answer to your question, but the North British accounting unit of the Labour Party has long had a cavalier attitude to the Data Protection legislation (or at least, some of its members have).

    About 15 years ago I qualified for a scheme under which the Scottish government (still officially only an “Executive” at that point) paid for me to do a correspondence course. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, they hadn’t thought it through properly and it didn’t take long for people to start claiming for non-existent courses set up by their pals.

    So, one of the big accounting firms (I forget which) was commissioned by the government to investigate a random sample of those who had applied for the money. My course provider (an offshoot of the Open University, so totally above board) was contacted and quite correctly refused to divulge information about me without my written permission. The person making the call then put pressure on the course administrator to hand over the information. She continued to refuse, but told me about it when asking for my permission, which I had no problem giving.

    I went to see my MSP, to express my disquiet that a company carrying out a task commissioned by the government of Scotland was attempting to bully someone into breaking the law. I still think that’s disgraceful now. She passed the complaint on to the relevant Minister, Wendy Alexander.

    The response, essentially, was a shrug of the shoulders, a semi-apology to me, but none at all to the female (not sure if that is significant) course administrator who had been bullied. I went to see my MSP again, thanked her for her efforts, and told her WA’s attitude was just not good enough. Needless to say, I never heard any more about it.

  36. heedtracker says:

    Itchybiscuit says:
    27 June, 2015 at 2:20 pm
    Just a thought folks, but isn’t it time that someone with the skill-set to do so, finally made a watertight connection between the Deputy Dawg and a certain on-line persona?

    Everyone who’s interested knows who that is but if you read the above article and do the same as SLabour’s done, you’re opening a Pandora box of trouble too, court, slander, breaking Data Protection Act law and regulations, supping with our demoniacally crap ukok media and so on.

  37. Albamac says:


    Unionist press picking over their own bones.

  38. Albamac says:

    Many thanks to Tim Turner for putting principle and before party.

  39. Robert Louis says:

    Labour (North British Branch), for heavens sake, get yourself sorted will you.

  40. Anagach says:

    icyspark says:
    27 June, 2015 at 2:42 pm

    The vulture journalists are pecking away at this

    Yes I wonder what kind of balance they will present.

  41. Albamac says:

    Scratch ‘and’ from previous comment – failed edit.

  42. Stoker says:

    @ crazycat (2.52pm).
    Thank you for that insight and thank you for not mentioning that WA until near the end or i wouldn’t have had the pleasure of reading all your post. Cheers!

  43. Bzzzz says:

    Is there a copy of this list anywhere at all?

  44. Lesley-Anne says:

    Exellent article … thank you Tim.

    Execellent work Stu in uncovering this piece by Tim.

    As others have said … what happens now?

    In my view NOTHING will happen. Labour in Scotland are too stupid to realise what they have done in creating this *ahem* Dodgy Dossier is breaking Data Protection law but there again they are Scottish Labour and let’s face it they NEVER pay attention to the law do they! 😉

    Like others I would love to see Nicola attack Kezia on Thursday at F.M.Q.’s with a copy of the Dodgy Dossier in her hand. 😀

  45. Al Ghaf says:

    In my travels, and they are many, there is not a country, state, provence, or territory that does not have the comfortable classes calling out to the priggish to bemoan the acerbic and destructive nature of the online debate railed against them.

  46. Proud Cybernat says:

    O/T – Apologies.

    Over the past few days I have been analysing ‘Scotland’s Population’ in this document here:

    The purpose of my analysis was to try and determine how long it would take for YES indy voters to reach parity with NO voters. My analysis took account of a whole load of different factors like the mortality rate for different age groups, the percentage of each age group that were YES/NO voters (thanks Lord Ashcroft), the birth rate and how younger voters, though more likely to vote YES, were only marginally so.

    The general outcome I found was that the base YES side gained a net increase of 3,000 votes per year (after YES voting deaths removed) while the NO side lost around 48,000 votes per year– a net gain then to the YES side of around 51,000 votes each year (all things remaining equal).

    It was a fascinating study and I have to confess that I am no expert by any means with such statistical analysis but the result was that, all things being equal, it will take the YES side about 7.5 years to reach natural parity with the NO side. Of course this does not take into account the steady momentum towards indy that is above and beyond naturally changing demographics. This means we could achieve parity much sooner but it is good to know that we will get there for sure in around 7.5 years.

    Some food for thought.

  47. heedtracker says:

    Duncan Hothersall ?@dhothersall 1h1 hour ago
    I’ve sat with people in tearful fear having been hounded on social media. Don’t talk to me about how niche it is. Tell me how we’ll stop it.

    SLabour campers strike back/tweet. I’d have thought oor Dunc would be drying the tears of all the seat warmers that lost their slots at the trough, May 7. Although on balance, prominent big hitters like Dunc were more than responsible for their vote SLab or else/right to rule over their Scotland region end of era campaign too.

    What’s this chump bashing on about

    Scott Arthur ?@DrScottThinks 28m28 minutes ago

    And @ChrisMcElenySNP is leader of the SNP in Inverclyde Council. Sturgeon has a hill to climb if she is to fix her party.

    Not bad Doc

    Scott Arthur retweeted
    John McTernan ?@johnmcternan 2h2 hours ago
    @dhothersall Rather wonderful isn’t it. Cybernats trying to prove cybernats don’t exist.

    Old McTernan seems to be defanged aswell. Old McTernan had a job, e i e i o:D

  48. Auld Rock says:

    Chitterinlicht – When you launch your ‘Cyber-pigeons’ just made sure that they take-off with a full bomb load of shite.

    Auld Rock

  49. Derek Moore says:

    It seems that I am one of the apparent cybernats “outed”. For what it’s worth my “offence” was this. Someone tweeted a picture of Ann Begg receiving flowers from her constituents or labour branch members. I tweeted that I thought she should have received pieces of silver instead #redtory.

    Baring in mind that Ann Begg had voted for Trident, austerity and the wellfare cap, I reckon Red Tory is fair enough. In the same way we were branded tartan Tories for years by the Labour Party.

    I was immediately targeted by various labour types including Lamont, McDougal and the Record editor as a cybernat, idiot, moron, etc etc. this included Blair McDougal snapshotting my SNP membership, profile and tweeting Nicola Sturgeon asking that I be “dealt with” it seemed to me that was an organised and concerted attack on me. My children followed my Twitter account and I did not want them to read some of the tweets levelled against me. I decided to delete my account.

    Now I am not denying that I tweeted Ann Begg suggesting that she would have been better receiving pieces of silver, however at no time did I call her a ("Tractor" - Ed). I said #redtory. This term was and is widespread since the referendum, I’m sure it has been used by many people including politicians.

    I’m not sure what use this list will be to the Labour Party, personally I couldn’t care less what they think of me. It’s just another case of labour attacking the people they used to want to represent.

  50. Seasick dave says:

    There’s always this little lot to be analysed…

  51. Chris Darroch says:

    Took trouble of recording all Twitter id’s from the list for anyone who wishes to contact these people re this article. Hope Stu doesn’t mind me dropping it here.


  52. Chris Darroch says:

    Took the trouble of copying out all the Twitter id’s from the dossier for anyone who might wish to contact them regarding this article. Hope Stu doesn’t mind me pasting them here.


  53. Chris Darroch says:

    I did wait and I did refresh. Sorry for double post above everyone.

  54. Capn Andy. says:

    I honestly find this a bit disturbing. When political parties start making lists of people who are on their shit list, it’s not good. What comes next? The knock on the door at four in the morning? Bad, very bad and they liken the Nationalists to Nazis???

  55. Macart says:

    A big thank you to Mr Turner.

    Must admit when I first heard of this nonsense my only thought was the insanity of yet further alienating an electorate they had sworn to reach out to, build bridges toward, the legality angle hadn’t even crossed my horizon.

    After this though, my flabber is well and truly ghasted.

    Jumped the shark and cleared the pier it seems.

  56. Mr Vasey says:

    “Jackie Birds a cow, end of!”

    Gets a whole page of its own, hilarious stuff there.

    What a waste of time from Labour you should be getting your own house in order.

    The SNP should not respond with a list of unionists doing the same that would just be a waste of governments time, not saying the cybernats couldn’t though…………

  57. Dorothy Devine says:

    I am very disappointed to see Paul Hutcheon hassling folk on the list.
    I once thought he was going to prove to be a “real” journalist.

    I wonder is he’d be so keen to hassle the heidbangers on the unionist side – after all he can read all sorts of bilious abuse above and below the line on certain newspapers.

    He could ask the Cochranes’s , Carrolls, Crichtons and Nelson’s of this world if they stand by some of their articles.

  58. Nana Smith says:

    I do wonder what bad stuff they are burying while we are all diverted by slab stooshie.

    I think we should pay close attention to the news over the next few days. Get digging, I feel there is something going on.

  59. Lesley-Anne says:

    I’ve just seen this on Twitter and was wondering?

    If it was acceptable for Maggie to use the Q word and T word then surely we can also use it without fear of objection. After all we are all Maggie’s children … apparently!:D 😀 😀

  60. Luigi says:

    Proud Cybernat says:
    27 June, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    It was a fascinating study and I have to confess that I am no expert by any means with such statistical analysis but the result was that, all things being equal, it will take the YES side about 7.5 years to reach natural parity with the NO side. Of course this does not take into account the steady momentum towards indy that is above and beyond naturally changing demographics. This means we could achieve parity much sooner but it is good to know that we will get there for sure in around 7.5 years.

    Some food for thought.

    There are different ways of calculating this, but my back-of-the-envelope computation came to something similar: 5 to 10 years for parity. With momentum and ‘events’, I would be comfortable with Ref2 anytime after 2020 (but no sooner).

  61. Luigi says:

    Nana Smith says:
    27 June, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    I do wonder what bad stuff they are burying while we are all diverted by slab stooshie.

    I think we should pay close attention to the news over the next few days. Get digging, I feel there is something going on.

    That’s a very good point, Nana. What are they trying to hide?

  62. David McDowell says:

    Is there no end to British Labour Party doublethink?
    According to their media poodles:
    Sweary words said by Labour Party members: never happens.
    Sweary words said by independence supporters: nasty, vile acts of thuggery worthy of the Nazis at their worst.
    There is a concerted attempt here to goad us into demanding an early referendum.
    I hope the SNP wakes up and ditches this daft “referendum the only way” policy.
    A referendum is no more “democratic” than any other method of gaining independence. The method is up to us – not David Cameron. A mandate for independence at Holyrood 2016 is my choice. SNP: “A vote for us is a vote for independence.” Sorted.
    To hell with Cameron deciding whether we have his “permission”. Really, enough is enough. How long are we going to allow this little toad Mundell to run around saying “no” to anything the SNP suggests?
    It’s absurd.

  63. heedtracker says:

    Scott Arthur ?@DrScottThinks 9m9 minutes ago
    Is there actually a SNP party member on twitter trying to help Nicola Sturgeon fix her party?
    All I see is shallow whataboutary.

    Latest SLab stuff via the good Doc.

    SLabour tweetster activists should maybe read just this one pretty spectacular real world and very non whataboutary report alone.

    But SLabour never read blogs like WoS or monitor twitter for their dossiers do they.

    What a bunch of clowns.

  64. Iain More says:

    So if I have this right then if the Sunday Herald publishes the dossier then the Labour Party is in deep voodoo legally?

    What is that old saying “Publish and be damned!”

  65. msean says:

    That “a vote for us is a vote for independence” sounds like a plan,don’t know the practicalities of it though. Saying that,it would be the settled will of Scottish registered voters,in Scotland,not elsewhere. Our voices are being heard,but the unionist parties are voting things down with English constituency MPs. Very democratic.

    The 2016 Scottish general election will be held only a few weeks after what could have been Scotlands independence day on 24th March 2016.

  66. thomaspotter2014 says:

    Nana Smith 4,51

    What they’re trying to hide is us ,the mug punters paying 150 million for Buck Palace upgrade

    Also in England -the councillors who decide on fracking are being blackmailed by Cuadrilla Resources to allow fracking or face legal and expensive action -IF THIS GETS THE GO AHEAD WE’RE FUCKED

  67. Croompenstein says:

    I hate seeing the UK govt crest as the bastards took the crown off of our unicorn and kept it in chains, a bit like the reality of the situation we are in.

  68. Phil Robertson says:

    This IS real anorak territory. There are (at least) two relevant aspects to the tweeters, one is the content and the other is the tweets’ details. So lists, like Chris Darroch’s posting, are definite dodgy wrt Data Protection. Public interest is another complicating issue.

    However content is another matter. I think the tweets are OWNED by whoever receives them while copyright is retained by the sender. The latter then raises the question of what is publishing.

    A real riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

  69. heedtracker says:

    Also in England -the councillors who decide on fracking are being blackmailed by Cuadrilla Resources to allow fracking or face legal and expensive action -IF THIS GETS THE GO AHEAD WE’RE FUCKED

    Scotland has got wake up to the fact that shale oil and gas fracking production is coming, whether you like it or not. If Scotland had voted YES, the only way to stop fracking in a PR Holyrood, would be to vote for a party that proposed to ban fracking if it got elected.

    Fracking is just one of the major drivers behind UKOK bettertogether, Crash Gordon, Lord Darling, Bliar Macbloater, BBC, you name it, all of them are rewarded to keep Scotland open for fracking. Our chums in the south have plundered Scotland’s natural resources for the last 300 years and they will never stop, unless…

  70. thomaspotter2014 says:


    Do you mean Like Carmichael’s memo?

    Except we all know it was -Spad-Carmichael-Mundell-Clegg-Cameron-Civil Service so you can shove your riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma up your arse

    The only real mystery is how these incompetent morons are running(ruining) this country

    Now fuck off as they say to Murphy(who?)

  71. David McDowell says:

    msean @5:59PM

    The “practicalities” are that the people of Scotland can express their sovereign will at the ballot box and declare themeselves independent.

    There is no “law” or “rule” saying independence can only be achieved by a referendum.

    The referendum “route” is merely the choice of the current SNP leadership. It was a policy I supported until the despicable Unionist betrayal of The Vow last week.

    A mandate sought by the Scottish government, met by the Scottish people. What is more “democratic” than that?

    As Greek Finance minister Yanis Varoufakis has just told the Eurogroup: “The Greek people retain sovereignty. We are the agents. The Greek people are the principals. They tell us what to do.”

    I hope the SNP were listening.

  72. Rock says:

    It is beyond me to understand how anyone with more than one brain cell would have voted for Labour in Scotland at the recent Westminster election.

    Unless one is an aspiring careerist politician.

  73. David McDowell says:

    I hope one of the people named in this document is in a position to prosecute Blair McDougall if its publication was illegal under the Data Protection Act.

  74. ianmc says:

    My understanding is that as these tweets are public then they are fair game.

  75. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Luigi at 5pm

    On what particularly wise grounds do you arrive at that timorous conclusion?
    You go for a referendum when you judge you can win it. That’s all.
    Politics is littered with the corpses of those waiting for “the right time” and Scotland has always been ill served by the feart.

    By 2020 the UK economy will have settled,all the bitter pills will have been swallowed and our enemies will have had all the time they need to stop the rot in their case.
    Our chance will probably have gone.

  76. Jimbo says:

    Since there is no such registered entity as the Scottish Labour Party the buck for this shameful Labour dossier will end up on the door-step of London Labour’s new boss.

    Some-one down there will have to have an enquiry into who ordered this childish dossier to be collated in the first place. This wasn’t just done in the last day or two. What was the name of the last guy who was in charge of the Scottish branch office again?

    They should also explain why London head office don’t know what their Scottish branch office clowns are getting up to behind the boss’s back.

  77. Petra says:

    Proud Cybernat @ 4:01

    I was really interested in your post PC as I’ve also been analysing statistical data from a number of sites over the last few months such as Scotlandgovstatistics. Births, deaths and so on.

    I’ve also monitored and collated the views of many Scots regarding how different age groups voted such as young Scottish voters versus the elderly.

    I did this because elderly voters were seen to be the stumbling block in relation to us acquiring our Independence due to e.g. lack of access to the Internet (truth) and fear of losing their pensions (lies). Additionally, from a professional perspective, I had been carrying out work at that time relating to elderly people living in Scotland from the Outer Hebrides to Dumfries and Galloway. As a bye I had formed an opinion as to who was planning to vote Yes / No and their reasons for voting in such a way.

    Many comments have been made online to the effect that as elderly Scottish individuals pass away the pro-Independence vote will rise. To my mind, in light of the data, this is incorrect. Elderly (financially fearful) Scots will sadly pass away over time but they will be replaced by a constant and probably never-ending stream (flood) of elderly voters (in the main financially secure) from rUK relocating to Scotland.

    Data highlights that these elderly people in the main voted no (74%). One can only surmise (no data to verify) that they prefer to live in Scotland but continue to have a strong allegiance to the land of their birth: England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

    I consider them to be one of the most challenging groups to convince to vote for Independence: second only to members of the Orange Order.

    Westminster et al have access to clear, concise facts / statistics. They know that we need to convince at least another 5% of the population to vote yes, hence the constant barrage of MSM (Westminster lackey) attacks. They are all united, still United, in using relentless, manifold strategies (devious or otherwise) to undermine the SNP.

    By 2020 we’ll be looking at statistics (if they care to tell us) that show that thousands more elderly people have relocated to Scotland. To my mind we should make a move as soon as we know that we have around 60% of the Electorate keen to vote for Independence.

  78. Grouse Beater says:

    ianmc: My understanding is that as these tweets are public then they are fair game.

    It is a brazen attempt to extinguish debate, to silence, another aspect of Project Fear.

    Those who liken it to the work of East Germany’s Stasi are correct. That organisation found many ways to silence dissent. Saying the ‘unacceptable’ thing openly, in public, was the first step in quelling opposition, continue to be outspoken or to indulge in loose talk’ and arrest and interrogation followed. Next came loose talk in the privacy of your own home, and indeed, posting anger on the Internet invariably means you did it from the ‘safety’ of your own home.

    The Labour party shows its real hand – authority will not be questioned. Dissenters must be expunged.

    It is far more than quelling profanity as a means of ridicule or criticism, it is the beginning of a concerted campaign to single out those who would criticise the British government and its servants, and to force the Scottish government to collaborate.

    And the same people think Devo-Max is the answer to a stable partnership, Scotland with England, the same who refused a share of the currency?

    They have embarked on a very dark and dangerous path.

    Let no one here treat it as a lark or a joke.

    Will Sturgeon be firm enough, eloquent enough to see it in those terms? So far she’s been persuaded by the enemy of democracy’s point of view.

  79. Dan Huil says:

    A very interesting article, Mr Turner.

  80. Proud Cybernat says:

    @ Petra 2:5a am

    “By 2020 we’ll be looking at statistics (if they care to tell us) that show that thousands more elderly people have relocated to Scotland.”

    That’s a good point, Petra. I hadn’t thought of this. However, I think we may still be okay given the tumultuous events of the last year.

    Look at what the UK MSM are doing to Scotland (particularly in the guise of the SNP)– totally vilifying us. A place full of hateful cybernats etc. We apparently have an SNP Govt. in Holyrood and 56 SNP MPs from 59 all of which they regard as nothing better than Nazis.

    Given that the UK MSM characterises Scotland in this ways, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was, in fact, a sharp downturn of older people from rUK retiring to Scotland. They simply will not like what they are hearing (lies of course) from the MSM. In that regard you could actually say that the UK MSM are doing a job for us here. Bizarre but in this regard, quite possibly true.

    And the current land reforms going through Holyrood may also make relocators think twice. And if there is a different, slightly more expensive, tax regime here than the rUK then that again could have an effect to reduce numbers of elderly deciding to retire to Scotland from rUK.

    They are, of course, very welcome to come here. Perhaps the next Indy Ref should have a caveat of some kind that restricts relocators from voting in that next plebiscite.

  81. Albamac says:

    @ Grouse Beater

    Excellent post.

    A climate of fear created by the fearful. It’s already having some effect. Some Wings readers have expressed reluctance to question them on the ‘Clypgate’ thing for fear of making their names and addresses available to their persecutors.

    A truly dreadful state of affairs.

  82. Phil Robertson says:

    The Labour party shows its real hand – authority will not be questioned. Dissenters must be expunged.

    You’ve got your parties mixed up. It’s the SNP that has explicit rules about disciplining members who publicly criticise the party line.

  83. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Phil Robertson – you conflate two entirely different scenarios.

    In the case of the SNP, you join, knowing the rules that apply if you’re naughty. Your party deals with you.

    In the case of Labour, they are branding members of the SNP as abusers, some of which members have abandoned Labour for pastures new – and Labour is not happy at its reduction in both membership and support.

    Labour HATES the feeling that it’s lost control, hence its desperate attempt to smear the opposition.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top