The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Fragile egos and collateral damage

Posted on November 19, 2012 by

Crikey, Euan McColm seems to have an awfully thin skin. Today, for the second time this month, Wings Over Scotland has found itself the recipient of a cryptic threat, which on this occasion coincided with a spot of maintenance by our webhosts and accordingly caused some momentary alarm among readers.

Mr McColm apparently feels that yesterday’s post and/or some of the comments below it constitute his being, and we quote, “defamed to fuck on a cybernat smear site”, though despite our asking him some time ago to specify the offending material so that we might take any appropriate action he’s declined to identify any.

So far so ho hum, then, except that for some inexplicable reason Mr McColm is threatening to take his anger out on the SNP, and the party’s spin-doctor Kevin Pringle in particular. This morning he issued the menacing warning “dear @theSNP and @KevinJPringle.  please thank @WingsScotland for what you are about to receive”, in a tweet he’s subsequently deleted.

Mr McColm has also deleted all the other tweets he directed to us, but you can see the original and some of the others here:

(Incidentally, the second and third tweets down in the image above see Mr McColm suggesting that he doesn’t know my name, which is odd as it’s clearly printed directly below the headline of every post I make on the site. He’s not the first Scotsman writer whose journalistic skills weren’t quite up to that level of in-depth investigation, and he also didn’t reply when I asked if I was eligible for the free curry.)

Now, this sort of moaning is pretty humdrum everyday stuff which comes with the territory if you dare to stick your head above the parapet and offer a political viewpoint on anything, let alone if you dare to critique the media itself. It’s water off a duck’s back to us. But it’s another tweet, which Mr McColm hasn’t yet deleted (and which was in any event helpfully retweeted by our dear friend Tom Harris MP and by unsuccessful Conservative “2010 Holyrood election” candidate Allan Smith), that takes this case somewhere altogether more sinister.

Euan McColm is a professional journalist regularly employed by the Scotsman, which claims political neutrality. Yet here, we appear to see him directly threaten to publish a story he considers will be damaging to the SNP and/or to Kevin Pringle personally, for purely vindictive reasons resulting from him being criticised on a website run by a 20-year Liberal Democrat voter.

We would invite readers to bear that fact in mind the next time a Scotsman column with Mr McColm’s name on it professes to be conducting an impartial analysis of Scottish political issues, and we’d further invite them to consider the point of issuing this threat in public, and in what ways it might conceivably be intended to intimidate or influence the actions of SNP MSPs and the independence campaign generally.

We keenly await hearing from Mr McColm’s solicitors with regard to the alleged defamation. Our contact form is at the top of the page.

Print Friendly

    120 to “Fragile egos and collateral damage”

    1. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:

      I just noticed your article “Those vile Cybernats” moving up the rankings.

      Must be relevant again…

    2. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      I believe we have good old Magnus Gardham to thank for that.

    3. Holebender says:

      OMG! What a screaming limp-wristed nancy boy that roughy toughy “journalist” turned out to be!
      I’ll be happy to supply my real name and full address if Euan wants to take me out on a date. I’m partial to a curry.

    4. John Lyons says:

      Interesting that Stories like this are becoming more common. Your quote on the front page seems particularly appropriate.
      They used to Laugh at us and call us names like Cybernat.
      They Ignored Newsnet Scotland until they printed that story 
      about them and then they complained they weren’t asked to comment before it was printed.
      Now they’re starting to fight. (and fight dirty!) 

      Then we win.

      Keep up the good work Stu. 

    5. Seasick Dave says:

      He seems particularily thin skinned; pet lamb.

      I’m up for the curry too.

    6. Steven of Songnam says:

      I thought we were all a jolly nice bunch. Hang on, I’m going to Google “define: defame” and see what I come up with. 
      Damage the good reputation of (someone); slander or libel
      Okay, so:

      Slander: The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.
      Libel: A published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.

      Now, I am no expert on logic, but I’ve seen Star Trek: The Original Series and Spock seems like a pretty good example to follow, and yesterday’s post only counts as libel if something in it was factually false but presented as true in order to make someone look bad. But there’s a lot of quotes and references, to prove that what was said was said. And apart from that it’s all opinion. Not exactly favourable to Mr McColm, but I’m pretty sure we’re still allowed to express our opinions in a peaceful and legal way etc. etc.

      Honestly, I’m not quite sure what he’s getting at.

    7. Holebender says:

      Who’s the LibDem miscreant, btw? I wonder if he’d be up to sharing a curry?

    8. Aplinal says:

      What’s all this curry business?  I am quite partial to a Chicken Korma, can I come too? 
      Regards the article, I suppose if I used the words hypocrite, charlatan, phoney, mountebank (I do like that one), lip-server, deceiver, or bluffer in respect of anyone in particular, I might be in the firing line?
      Full name will be supplied when I hear from “He who most not be named’s” lawyers).

    9. MajorBloodnok says:

      Vile Goons???!  I say, I think the blighter’s defamed me.

    10. Aplinal says:

      @Major Bloodnok
      No more curried eggs for you! 😉

    11. MajorBloodnok says:

      Red peppers in dynamite sauce?  I must have been out of my mind!

    12. dadsarmy says:

      Dear Euan McColm. I didn’t join in that thread as I haven’t got a clue who you are, but seeing what’s on offer, I’m happy to supply you directly with my real name. It’s going to be a long hard winter of UK discontent, and times are hard. I like to eat.

      Euan – you’re a whinging twit! A dingbat. A twerp. A long streak of p*ss.

      Now, do I get the curry?

    13. Garve says:

      I collate a few lists on Twitter – one of them I call ‘Not Open to Reason‘ and occasionally add someone I find who is less than amenable to the idea of independence.

      Some people, like @ianssmart and @dhothersall took this well, seeing it as a badge of honour and even requesting that they be added. I’ve only had one person who’s ever expressed any form of unhappiness – yep, that’d be @euanmccolm.

      Sadly, I didn’t keep copies of his tweets, since deleted. However, the first went along the lines of

      ‘remove me from your tawdry little list’

      Whilst I am paraphrasing, I certainly remember the tone of the tweet, and the complete absence of the word ‘please’ or anything similar. I’d have been happy to have done so if he’d asked nicely, and think I replied in that vein.

      So to that point, it was a normal Twitter exchange – I try to be polite on Twitter, but many don’t and that’s not worth remarking on. However, what Euan Mccolm did next was, to my mind, contemptible and uncalled for.

      He presumably Googled my name, found out who my employer was and sent them a Tweet, (again deleted and not stored) along the lines of

      ‘do you know what your cybernat employee, Garve Scott-Lodge gets up to – tell him to remove me from his list’

      and another something like

      ‘don’t use Plexus Media, they employ cybernats’

      Thankfully, my employers are sensible, reasonable people with thick skins. Their response was to tweet

      “@euanmccolm @G4rve Of course not. Sort it out between yourselves like grown-ups.”

      This one still exists

      Mccolm was happy to potentially get someone the sack simply because they added him to a list on Twitter.

      I’m always amused when I see people I respect quoting his columns – next time you do so, remember, he is an arsehole.

    14. antmcg says:

      Hmm, Free Curry, where do I sign up? My real name is kinda easy to guess with the name I use to post, but am also willing to post it if required 🙂

    15. ronald alexander mcdonald says:

      The whole thing is getting more desperate and silly by the day.

      If we had an impartial press there would probably be no cyber nats/unionists. Unfortuneatly, the media are not in the truth business and therefore have become victims of their own deception from sections of an informed public whom they anger with their dishonesty. In short they have not come to terms with the IT age, and have chosen to bury their heads in the sand and lash out at those who reveal the truth. I am not excusing intemperate language and personal insults.

      Perhaps they should take note of Patrick Harvie’s comments and research and print,  accordingly, with regard to the Independence issue. i.e. the pros and cons.  


    16. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “So to that point, it was a normal Twitter exchange – I try to be polite on Twitter, but many don’t and that’s not worth remarking on. However, what Euan Mccolm did next was, to my mind, contemptible and uncalled for.”

      He does seem quite extraordinarily rude and obnoxious, and proud of the fact. But that’s a remarkable story. As I don’t have an employer, I wonder who he’ll whinge at? He’s still threatening something or other.

    17. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “He presumably Googled my name, found out who my employer was and sent them a Tweet, (again deleted and not stored) along the lines of -“

      Easy peasy:

      “dear @plexusmedia could you ask your cybernat employee @G4rve to remove me from his tiresome little list? #cybernat #boycottplexus”

    18. YesYesYes says:

      What has Lord McApline started?
      Will Euan throw in a gulab jamun?

    19. Euan’s a funny one. He’s blocked me on Twitter, and I have absolutely no idea why as I’ve never given the boy the time of day – in fact the only reason I know I’m blocked is because I can’t expand discussions he’s mentioned in (which can be rather annoying – I think this is a major fault in the way Twitter enforces blocking). Still, he’s always struck me as the kind of guy who can dish it out but not take it.

      Some folk might remember that not long after he triggered the events that led to Montague Burton being “unmasked” and losing his job, he then started on others, including Jeff Breslin of Better Nation fame (although then just with his own SNP Tactical Voting blog) who felt compelled to end his membership of the SNP as a result. Breslin is not by any stretch of the imagination someone you would describe as a “Cybernat”, so it’s clear Mr McColm just doesn’t take too kindly to being criticised in public (typical journalist, then).

      One of the things that greatly amuses me about you though Stu, is that you’re not like most of the people involved in blogging. Most people can be intimidated into silence (and it IS intimidation – which is why it’s rather ironic that McColm takes such great delight in accusing Mike Russell of being a bully), but after 20 years dealing with such petty people in other spheres of journalism, you appear to take this completely in your stride. Kevin Williamson on Bella Caledonia is the only other person who comes to mind who can also claim this, as he too is pretty good at telling petty journalists and politicians to go swivel. Perhaps why Wings and Bella are by far the two most vital blogs in Scottish politics?

      (Actually, the whole Universalityofcheesegate incident might even help explain McColm’s particular dislike of Mike Russell…)

    20. muttley79 says:

      The allegations against Lord McAlpine recently were clearly defamation of character, as he was alleged to be a child abuser, when in fact he was the victim of mistaken identity.  If you are reading this Euan McColm, the message is that there is a clear media bias in Scotland against independence.  For evidence see Ian McWhirter’s article in the Sunday Herald after the May 2011 elections, about this very subject.  Also read Alex Massie’s recent comments, who is usually a fair unionist commentator.  In addition, what has Kevin Pringle got to do with this?  Some people support Scottish independence.  Some support it passionately.  Deal with it….Mike Russell is also not the only one who has a fragile ego!

    21. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Sadly, I didn’t keep copies of his tweets, since deleted. However, the first went along the lines of ‘remove me from your tawdry little list’”

      “Tiresome” again, in fact. Though he actually did say “please”:

    22. Alex Grant says:

      Why don’t YOU complain to his boss about his threatening behaviour?

    23. Rolf says:

      The whole “cybernat” tag is a pathetic, shit-covered smear aimed at negating the views of anyone who dares criticise the (old and dying) union-defending, Labour-supporting Scottish orthodoxy. Use of the term is a way of insisting that anyone who leans toward being pro-independence is a borderline terrorist, an online insurgent who’s making life hell for the poor defenceless souls in the MSM. The reality is, the internet, and social media in particular, have given voices to the wise, to idiots and to a whole lot more in between, of all different political persuasions. I, like thousands of others, count this site as a voice to the wise.
      I’d also like to add a general observation, that it always seems that those who can dish it out are those least able to take it in return.

    24. James McLaren says:

      I see these tweets seem to be sent after opening hours.

    25. Arbroath 1320 says:

      Oh goody goody a curry night at Euan Mccolm’s expense, count me in folks. Can my partner come too, she’s also partial to a free curry. 😆
      This guy is a complete imbecile, allegedly. (Phew! do you think I got away with that one? :D)
      Let me see if I have this “person” figured out correctly here. He is permitted to spread lies. deceit, misinformation, false allegations allegedly ( Hope I got away with that too. :D) about anyone and anything involved with the YES, in particular the SNP, Independence campaign. However, anyone attempting to rebuke any of his alleged remarks with the truth are instantly accused of being cybernat trolls and threatened with lawsuits. Hmm, he sounds like he’s throwing all his toys out of his pram, again!

    26. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “This guy is a complete imbecile, allegedly. (Phew! do you think I got away with that one? :D )”

      I don’t know if defamation law in Scotland is different, but in England “complete imbecile” wouldn’t be libellous because it’s classed as “vulgar abuse”. If you’re just insulting someone that’s fine – to be libel you have to suggest something specific that’s injurious to their reputation, like “murderer” or “rapist”. (And it would also have to be false, obviously.)

    27. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:

      “The reality is, the internet, and social media in particular, have given voices to the wise, to idiots and to a whole lot more in between, of all different political persuasions. I, like thousands of others, count this site as a voice to the wise.”

      Cybernats are made, not born 

    28. Seasick Dave says:

      Talking of curries, I had a pelican curry for the first time last night.

      It was very good but the bill was enormous.

      As I was sat looking at the menu I was hit in the back of the head by a pakora. I turned around and the waiter said, “That’s just for starters”.

      At the end of the meal he came up and asked, “Curry OK?” to which I said, “Just the one song then, as I’m in a hurry”.

    29. calum neigh says:

      It’s sad really when the first response of a professional writer and journalist to a perceived slight is that of ranting, swearing and making threats on Twitter. I get the impression though it’s faux outrage and he’s secretly rather pleased. Wasn’t it George Bernard Shaw who said “Martyrdom is the only way a man can become famous without ability” ?

    30. Son of the Pigeon. says:

      Mr. McColm seems to want the Rev. Stuart Campbell’s name so that he can properly identify him. I’m not sure of the actual reason for him wanting to identify the Rev. Stuart Campbell but he appears to want it earnestly as he tries to curry favour by offering a curry to anyone who can supply that name.
      It’s Stuart Campbell.
      Would W.O.S. offering a curry to anyone with knowledge of Mr. McColm’s address and who was prepared to supply it to W.O.S. so that he can be properly identified be along the same lines? No? Why not?
      P.S. McColm means son of the pigeon. Coo!

    31. scottish_skier says:

      Everyone in my office (specialist oil and gas technical consultants) supports Scottish independence. However, that’s largely par for the course in the energy industry. 

      I’d be happy for some raging unionist nutter to contact my co and ‘out me’ (I’m not exactly in the closet). Hardly as if e.g. Shell or Saudi Aramco would give a rat’s behind what they think. They very much value advice from my colleagues and I though.

    32. ronald alexander mcdonald says:

      I don’t know why those who favour Independence bother tweeting with members of Pravda Unionists. Better to just ignore them and block their tweets. That will drive them completely nuts!   

    33. scottish_skier says:

      Oh, and from recent travels with work it seems Scottish independence is very popular globally, from Saudi Arabia to Norway; everybody’s heard about the referendum. First thing I’m asked about before we get down to technical discussions.

      Wonder why that is; the global support. Maybe Britain lacks friends internationally? 

    34. Son of the Pigeon. says:

      Drive them completely nuts. Yep! Screw them.

    35. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Would W.O.S. offering a curry to anyone with knowledge of Mr. McColm’s address and who was prepared to supply it to W.O.S. so that he can be properly identified be along the same lines? No? Why not?”

      Just for clarity, and in the knowledge that you weren’t actually suggesting such a thing, can I urge that anyone who happens to know Mr McColm’s address or other personal information REFRAINS from posting it here or anywhere else. Let’s stay on the high ground, mmkay?

    36. Seasick Dave says:

      Son of the pigeon?

      That’s why I love him like a doo.

    37. dadsarmy says:

      Same for us even, Rev, even accidentally like: “I see from xyz blog you live in Macallan Street in Paisley, how’s the whisky doing?” There’s some nutters out there …

    38. Son of the Pigeon. says:

      Absolutely Rev. It was just some flippancy.
      Who give a damn about the little pigeon toe’d stooly?

    39. scottish_skier says:


      I’m watching with interest ICM’s new wisdom methodology for electoral predictions; a form of crowd sourcing.

      The latest prediction by the public of what might happen if there were an imminent General Election counters recent polls which suggest that Labour have widened the gap over the Conservatives. Indeed, the ‘Wisdom’ prediction is now showing a consistent trend toward narrowing of the Labour lead over the Tories, from a high of 8% to a low of 5% now.

      IMO, a Tory win is the most likely outcome too. Which would mean bye-bye Scotland no doubt.

    40. muttley79 says:

      @Rev Stu
      I don’t know if defamation law in Scotland is different, but in England “complete imbecile” wouldn’t be libellous because it’s classed as “vulgar abuse”. If you’re just insulting someone that’s fine – to be libel you have to suggest something specific that’s injurious to their reputation, like “murderer” or “rapist”. (And it would also have to be false, obviously.)

      I have no idea what the boy is complaining about.  Surely saying the media in Scotland is biased against independence is just an opinion?  How is he going to prove that they are not?  Why is he bringing Kevin Pringle into it? 

    41. G H Graham says:

      I suggest giving this misguided & inexperienced young man all the space he needs to vent his poisonous, bitter, frustration & then compound his emotional difficulties by completely ignoring him.

    42. dadsarmy says:

      Did you go off air for a bit? I was wondering if you’d been DDOSed or even injuncted or something!

    43. Garve says:

      Well done Stu for finding those – must find out how to do it some time.
      I’d like to apologise here for wrongly saying that @euanmccolm did not say please in his tweet. I should have removed him from the list at that point, although perhaps before I read that tweet the #boycottplexus one may have been brought to my attention which would have coloured my views.
      Still think contacting my employers is a damn sneeky thing to do. Then again, I did mention this whole affair to @kennyfarq when he announce Euan’s new post, which I guess makes me an arsehole too!

    44. douglas clark says:

      This thread is disgusting. But in a good way.
      Horrible little ‘journalist’ meets the real world. His pretentious utterly belicose little life-style is taken for a walk. And the stupid arse thinks because he’s a luvvy that he is a protected species?
      I quote:
      “oh, i got defamed to fuck on a #cybernat smear site. i feel so well disposed to the #yesscot campaign now. that will shine through the page.”
      No. He didn’t. He got called to account and he doesn’t fucking like it.
      Well, who gives a shit what Mr McCol has to say? I never did.
      WE should have been calling idiots like this out for yonks, because they are just media bullies and not worth a spit.

    45. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Did you go off air for a bit? I was wondering if you’d been DDOSed or even injuncted or something!”

      We did. We’re having unrelated host issues today (the site was down for a while this morning too), which is a shame as the story’s generating big traffic. This is why people should follow us on Twitter 😉

    46. douglas clark says:

      That would be Mr McClolm, just so’s we all know I am not particularily impressed with him.

      But that’s what you have to expect of Unionists…….

    47. Galen10 says:

      Why is that these whiney cry babies like McColl not only don’t know the basics about what defamation is, but then get all passive aggressive when they are called out for their egregious behaviour?

      If he had nothing to hide or be ashamed of, why did he delete the tweets referred to above? 

    48. muttley79 says:

      @douglas clark and everyone!
      The fact that McColm refers to this more than good enough website, which supports independence, not the SNP, as a “cybernat smear site,” shows a clear preference for the No camp.  That he is supposed to be objective probably passes him by, just as it does to so many others in his profession.  McColm is talking the language of uber-unionists, such as Foulkes, Gray and Wilson.  His rant at Mike Russell yesterday is looking all the more stupid.

    49. douglas clark says:

      I apparently dislike this ego so much that his name is beyond me.
      For the record we are talking about Mr McGloom.

    50. G H Graham says:

      By even making a deal out of that man’s emotional instability, you are providing him with a degree of self satisfaction because of the attention he has received. He works for a newspaper which is a disgrace & neither he nor his employer deserve to be in journalism anymore.

      Before I ask you once again to ignore him, take a moment to consider how much better our country will be when his employer is finally liquidated. 

      All of us can help make that happen by refusing to respond in anyway to him, his comical stories & any other alleged news that his employer chooses to publish. Make it happen. 

    51. Juteman says:

      Damn! I missed a curry fight! How do you get Twitterd? 🙂

    52. Craig P says:

      A curry night with Stuart Campbell.

      WoS reader offer, if you can name Rev Stuart Campbell, you are in with a chance of joining him for a curry on an evening of his choice.

      Please hurry! as Ashokas can only seat 200.

    53. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “If he had nothing to hide or be ashamed of, why did he delete the tweets referred to above? “

      A good point well made.

      The really annoying thing about this whole affair is that I don’t even like curry.

    54. Iain says:

      What a whingey lot Scottish journalists are (cf Maddox, Gardham et al). All over the world, and even on our own sceptered isles within living memory, journalists are assaulted, tortured, imprisoned and murdered, yet they keep calm and carry on until they’re no longer physically able.
      No doubt we’ll soon be hearing about evil Nats trying shut down debate because we’re encouraging people not to buy the rags in which these heroes plough their wobbly furrows.

    55. John Lyons says:

      G H Graham, I hear you, but I do also think it’s right to highlight this kind of bad behaviour, particularly because it’s also hypocritical. Kind of reminds me of that Danny Alexander speech. “Tax evaders, we’re coming after you!” he boldly stated despite the fact he is one himself. The irony was completely lost on him, as I’m sure it is on McColm, who, by the way, I had never heard of before today….

    56. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “What a whingey lot Scottish journalists are (cf Maddox, Gardham et al).”

      Technical correction: Maddox, Gardham and Eddie Barnes at the Scotsman are all in fact English. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it does seem odd that the Scottish political media has such a problem rustling up anyone Scottish to fill its senior posts.

    57. An Duine Gruamach says:

      Euan, if you’re reading this, you’re an arrogant, tiresome slug who expects to be able to fling shite at others but becomes affy precious when criticised.  The fact that people pay you for what you write does not exempt you from being called to account.  Tossing off some articles for a paper with ever declining readership does not put you on a higher plane than people who write blogs.  You are beneath contempt.

      Got that?

      (Duncan Sneddon, Wolfson College, Linton Road, Oxford, OX2 6UD) 

    58. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “How do you get Twitterd?”

      The easiest way is to get the Echofon plugin for Firefox. (There isn’t anything quite as painless for other browsers.) Then Twitter will just sit quietly in the corner of your browser and tell you when anything interesting gets said.

    59. Iain says:

      @Rev. Stuart Campbell
      ‘Maddox, Gardham and Eddie Barnes at the Scotsman are all in fact English’

      Hey, I’m an inclusive civic nationalist, I’m happy to extend the benison of Scottishness to these guys if they choose to live and work here! 
      Whether they’d want to accept it is another matter.


    60. Going by the amount of curry lovers here maybe we should settle it like men with a who-can-eat-the-hottest contest at a restaurant of Euan’s choice?

      “Talking of curries, I had a pelican curry for the first time last night.
      It was very good but the bill was enormous.
      As I was sat looking at the menu I was hit in the back of the head by a pakora. I turned around and the waiter said, “That’s just for starters”.
      At the end of the meal he came up and asked, “Curry OK?” to which I said, “Just the one song then, as I’m in a hurry”. 

      I’m ashamed to say I guffawed at these.  Poor Euan needs to tikka chill pill.  🙂 

    61. douglas clark says:

      The point of this, dear reader, is that an idiot has declared himeslf for the status quo:
      Euan McColm

      We can all be relieved that the man has nothing worthwhile to say.

    62. Silverytay says:

      The fact that the m.s.m are frothing at the mouth over bullying cybernats is a good sign .
      10 years ago the m.s.m could print any lie they wanted and the public would treat it as gospel .With the advent of the internet these people are now being found out and they hate it that everything they print or say is now being questioned .
      I have noticed recently that a lot of pro independence supporters have been feeling depressed over all the negativity , lies and smears coming from the m.s.m and unionist side . My advice would be dont despair , the unionists cant keep this up for another 2 years and the fact that they are reduced to these tactics shows that no matter what they say in public , behind the scenes they are panicking .

    63. David McCann says:

      Seems to me  this Mr McColm  (who he?) went to the Duane Clarridge school of diplomacy! Referring to US undermining democracy in countries around the world, the former CIA Chief states  ‘Get used to it world. We’re not going to put up with nonsense. If you don’t like it lump it”
      “The War on Democracy”

    64. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “The fact that the m.s.m are frothing at the mouth over bullying cybernats is a good sign”

      It’s been very odd today. The post on Sunday didn’t say anything very much about Mr McColm except that he was a bit pleased with himself, a trait he appears to be quite proud of:

      Today, though, he’s been in a raging fury, pouring out bile left, right and centre, referring to “cybernats” with words like “wankers” and “puffed up, thwarted, spiteful little men”. We’ve discovered that he goes running to people’s employer if they add him to a daft Twitter list of people they don’t think are open to argument, and threatens boycotts if they continue to employ independence supporters. And yet apparently he’s the victim of bullying.

      It’s absolutely extrordinary, and the way BritNats have rallied to his defence makes it look inescapably as if they’re really, really rattled. Which given the innocuous nature of the original post is bewildering.

    65. Morag says:

      If this was any old Tom Dick or Harry it would be regrettable, but it takes all sorts.  For a journalist writing for a broadsheet newspaper to communicate publicly (or even privately) in such terms is absolutely breathtaking.
      On the related subject of Gardham, I’ve just written a letter which will go to the Herald on actual paper explaining why after more than 40 years of devoted readership, I’m cancelling my subscription.  It’s not only Gardham of course, I was well scunnered before he appeared, but he’s the straw and I’m the camel’s back.

    66. NorthBrit says:

      If you’ve got to the point where your only refuge is to threaten libel actions and to grass up people to their employers while simultaneously accusing them of being wankers, and, with no sense of irony, the sort of people that a good police state needs, then people are entitled to infer that you have lost the argument.


    67. douglas clark says:

      It is always a shame when a no account journalist gets taken to task.
      For they squeel, and claim a special position in life. A position they no longer occupy. For you, dear reader, will, have made your own mind up about  Mr McColm, and his opinions. Hopefully your opinions are nothing like his. For he thinks he can write and everyone must bow down to his opinions, in fact, he talks shite.
      What is you get from reading the samisdat that is this.

      He is lying to you, big time.
      It is inescapably the case that being treated as an idiot, probably bought and sold for English gold, is an acceptable, albeit dishonest, position to take.

      That is journalism today. A shower of pricks.
      Why would a lying liar do that?
      It is a bit beyond me.
       It seems to me someone around here  is a bit of a crybaby.

    68. Taighnamona says:

      Sorry for going off topic…I can add nothing further to what each of you have said about this incompetent, petulant buffoon.

      An interesting extract from a blog is highlighted here,

      To summarise, mp, michael mccann is defending JL’s policy swerve and has boasted in this exchange, of how labour, when they were in power, ‘saved’ 750m each year and prudently returned over 1bn to the hm government. Remind me again of how much we are paying contractors each year for the PFI legacy. 

    69. James McLaren says:

      Rev Stu
      Echofon seems no longer to be available. The link is invalid and googling it leads to a notice that it is no longer available.

    70. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      It’s no longer supported, but I downloaded it only about a week ago. You should still be able to find it somewhere. Otherwise there are thousands of Twitter clients, it’s just the most unobtrusive.

    71. Silverytay says:

      I would imagine by this time next year that every pro independence supporter will be banned from posting on any m.s.m site and it will be nothing to do with abusive or libelous comments
       It will all be down to sneaky boy and posters like him who destroy the anti independence camp with cold hard facts and also provides links to support these facts .
      It is a joy to read sneaky boys posts when he has the bit between his teeth , there is no abusive language , he just destroys the likes of gardham and mccolm,s credibility with the facts .  As I posted previously , 10 years ago they could lie and smear to their hearts content and they would never be pulled up for it .  Well these days are gone now and they dont like it one little bit , which explains why they are frothing at the mouth .
      If they want to see real abusive language and libelous comments , I suggest they visit the daily mail where if the comments were made against any one other than the Scot,s , the Welsh and the Irish the paper would be shut down .

    72. Boorach says:

      I am the Rev Stuart Campbell…. Well it worked for Sparticus didn’t it?

      Actually I happened to be in the local shop this morning as it took delivery of both the copies of our vaunted journo’s broadsheet (no names, no advertising) it hoped to sell today! Must remember to ask about returnstomorrow!

    73. douglas clark says:


      I am Sarticus too!

      As you say, That is how Mr McColm comes acoss,

      A voice for no-one.

    74. Castle Rock says:

      Looks like we’re winning the arguments then as they are badly rattled.

      Did he really contact your employers? McCarthyism is clearly alive and well in Unionist Scotland and someone should be investigating this thoroughly as the BritNats are using tactics of intimidation to try and silence people, this is 2012 for Christ sake not 50’s America.

      What’s happened to quality journalism in Scotland?  Is no one in the ‘quality’ press prepared to speak out against McColm and his ilk?

    75. muttley79 says:

      @Castle Rock
      Funnily enough your post reminded of Willie Rennie having a go at the young actor, Martin Compton, for being involved in promoting the Commonwealth Games.  Compton supports independence and Rennie was having a go at him for this reason.  As regards journalists, I would say Ian McWhirter, Gerry Hassan, Lesley Riddoch are worth reading.  They usually try and be balanced. 

    76. EdinScot says:

      Does Mr McColm really believe that having written for Murdochs’ former rag and the laughingly titled Scotsman with their ludicrouss anti SNP smear stories that we the public should swallow his bile filled drivel like the good little people we are.  If so the man is living in a parallel universe.  What will be the demise of him and his latest rag is the social media.  Times have changed and the social media has played a huge part in that. 
      What upsets him and the Gardhams so much is that ‘their’ good old days are no more as sites likes this challenge their articles that they have drip fed to the public for years.  Their time is up.  Maybe he is just beginning to see the reality that he is fighting our country and our peopleto our rightful place in the world as another independent nation which is the norm.  And no amount of hissy fits by him and his ilk will cut it with the public at large.
      With him self combusting big style with this very public tantrum negates him an irrelevance and rips his own argument to shreds.  Im lucky enough to be alive (so far) to see this referendum at last like so many others that im hazarding a guess that he’s pissing in the wind.  Its time to get out our way McColm as the Scottish Spring will sweep you and the other anti democrats aside.  Imagine working against the people of your own country!  There are names that people call that but im going to leave that for others  to say.  With his very public breakdown, he has shown he isnt fit for purpose let alone to lace Mike Russel’s shoes.

    77. Steven of Songnam says:

      I can become flabbergasted when people get upset about internet comments. Cyberbullying and using the web to plan or incite law-breaking are very, very bad. But that’s not what goes on here. If you’re a public figure, like, say, a journalist who writes articles under his own name in a national newspaper, then sometimes people are going to call you out and maybe say uncomplimentary things about you. That can suck, but it’s a part of life. If you’re a grown-up with a career and experience in dealing with people, you don’t have to go around making threats against people who don’t like you. You have friends who like you, and people who respect your writing, so it’s okay. Right?
      In an ideal world, we’d all get along and all go out for pizza together after the big game. But if you’re a political journalist, don’t expect universal adoration. Especially if you’re writing articles about a sensitive subject. If someone was lying about or threatening you, that would be one thing, and anger would certainly be a justified response. But if they just aren’t in your fan club, you’re best off ignoring them.
      At least, that’s my friendly advice. If someone lies about you to defame your character, you should be upset. But we shouldn’t distract from the real issues of cyberbullying and online threats. This is a more civilized place.

    78. patronsaintofcats says:

      I’ll say this for Mr. McColm – he throws a mean bun!

    79. Castle Rock says:

      Thanks Muttley, Kenneth Roy can also be good when he’s on form but overall the quality of journalism in Scotland is pretty dire.
      If it weren’t for this site, Bella, Newsnet and a few others then the BritNats would be truly running riot with their lies, smears, bile and hate.

    80. gman says:

      Ot.  C4 just released mp rental details after a foi fight. PDF link on page here

      First one to spot a schoolfriend / family / lover landlord gets a chocolate biscuit.

    81. patronsaintofcats says:


    82. Spout says:

      Funniest and saddest thing I’ve read recently.
      There is a good word for the  Mr McColms of this world….. cockalorum.

    83. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:


      The first thing I notice on that FOI release is the 51 MP’s whose landlords hae been [Redacted]… why??? 

      The second thing I noticed was Labour (Hull) MP Karl Turners Landlord is the RMT Union


    84. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:

      Andrew Turner MP (Conservative – Isle of Wight) is renting from Lady Alexandra Jane Hill…

      Who it would seem is the wife to Jonathan Hopkin Hill, Baron Hill of Oareford – Conservative Lord (Made life peer on 27th May 2010) 

      Are MP’s allowed to rent from Lords families under the new system? Anyone know?

    85. Rolf says:

      Apparently now Alex Salmond has to take personal responsibility for the content of Stu’s blog and for the thoughts of every Yes-leaning person with internet access. I’m not sure if he’s lost it or just trolling:
      it’s time for the @thesnp to answer some difficult questions about #cybernats. i think #salmond has to take personal responsibility.

    86. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:

      Likewise Keith Simpson Conservative MP for Broadland is renting from Conservative Lord Howard Flight.

      Flight resigned as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party on 24 March 2005, following comments made at a Conservative Way Forward meeting that was being secretly recorded. In the meeting he stated that the Conservatives in office could make more spending cuts than they were promising in their campaign before the general election.
      Conservative leader Michael Howard then withdrew the party whip, and announced that Flight was no longer an approved candidate and could not contest the Arundel and South Downs seat as a Conservative party candidate at the 2005 general election. Flight refused to accept this, maintaining that only his local party branch has the right to deselect him.
      On 6 April 2005, he agreed to give up his attempts to continue as a Conservative candidate and his party began the process of selecting a new candidate. The chosen candidate, Nick Herbert, won the seat at the election.
      Flight was placed on the ‘A-List’ of Conservative Party candidates ahead of the 2010 general election, but this failed to secure him a new seat. On 19 November 2010, it was announced that Flight was to be created a life peer and sit as a Conservative in the House of Lords. His full title is Baron Flight of Worcester in the County of Worcester.

    87. pro-loco says:

      It seems Mr McColm is now demanding that Alex Salmond take personal responsibility for all the cheek you cybernates have sent his way. Apologies for not having the cyber knowhow to make this more amusing or copy the tweet itself – I did see him bleating  though on the Labour Hame  sarcasm free zone.

    88. Boorach says:

      Just had a look at “those Vile Cybernats” posting as indicated by Scott Minto.

      Seems that the posters don’t have a much time for AS! However, if that is a true measure of their quality of debate they are in good company with the self-esteemed Mr McDoo!

      A curry for the first person to spot him in the goven stand next time the diddly teams are featured in ‘girn of the day’

    89. muttley79 says:

      What has Alex Salmond personally got to do with this?  Did McColm ask Johann Lamont about the comment about Alex Salmond’s father?  That is the logic of his remark….Is McColm a bit of an Ian Smart? Just had a look at his Twitter. He is talking about nationalists having a go at his family. What the fuck is he talking about? He is going on about being defamed horribly! James McKenzie is going on about the horrible nats, he his supposed to be a Yes supporter! This is better than Wacky Races… Oh dear…

    90. Rolf says:

      @Muttley79  I have no idea what he’s thinking. Apparently the only bad things on the internet are those related to independence supporters. He’s fast becoming a parody of himself. I’m going to ignore him from now, which is what most people have probably been doing all along.

    91. muttley79 says:

      So Salmond can be compared to Hitler, a man who was the person most responsible for the Holocaust, which claimed 5-6 million lives in the most horrendous of circumstances, and other genocidal dictators, yet a journalist takes exception to a internet website, which is not in any way affiliated to the SNP, and McColm somehow holds the First Minister personally responsible?  The depths the Scotsman has plunged in the last two decades is alarming…

      McColm is now talking about trying to bring him out into the spotlight, and looking at all aspects of his life (think he is talking about Rev Stu), and ‘damage him.’ FFS.

    92. Morag says:

      You know, I find this, and to a lesser extent Gardham’s contribution on Call Kaye this morning, seriously disturbing.  Although I knew these guys were unionists, in a naive sort of way I saw them as sober, respectable, responsible commentators even if biassed.
      This display of petty-minded nastiness that would shame a bunch of primary 6 kids in the remedial stream is actually quite shocking.  These are the people the public still seem to look to, to set the debate.  And they’re not fit to run a college rag.

    93. mrbfaethedee says:

      Sadly, Cashley and Geddes are my current lowlights in this episode so far.

    94. Adrian B says:

      With regard to Euan’s free curry night – I would rather decline his invitation – he is not the sort of company that I keep. No offence taken.

    95. Euan McColm's Doctor says:

      mrbfaethedee – bit harsh on Geddes, he’s been quite sensible from what I’ve seen, highlighting that there are problems on both sides. Cashley is a right numptie though, along with Chris Jones. Both embarked on a Quisling baiting session a few months back, to try and… well, I forget what their actual point was now. Suffice to say that they are just two of the many self-appointed arbiters of the internet, who would rather be embraced by journalists and self-proclaimed “rational” unionists than by fellow nationalists. They hint at a growing problem, that of the SNP in general (and their staff in particular) thinking they own independence. 

      I say this having witnessed my local Yes group looking like nothing more than the local SNP group under a different banner. The same people thinking they can run the campaign, setting up meetings between themselves to decide how things are done. I only know this by chance through getting myself added into a very selective mailing list. 

      Do we want this campaign run by people like Jones and Cashley, who want the normal people to shut up and let “the activists” do their job, and just turn up in 2014 to put a cross in a box, before leaving everything back in the hands of the kind of busybodies who can be arsed chapping doors when everyone else is having their tea? Do we want to leave this all in the hands of people who not only back journalists who call for the SNP to silence people who just want to air their views, but who actually become complicit in making this happen by shouting down folk and calling them “loons”? These idiots who have fallen for the “Cybernats” lie rather than dismissing it for the pish that it is?

      Fuck this for a game of soldiers. If that’s their idea of independence, then let’s piss off somewhere else and start a new country. Such people will be the death of the SNP, just as they killed Labour (who, incidentally, Jones used to be a member of…) 

    96. mrbfaethedee says:

      @Euan McColm’s Doctor
      I understand where Geddes is coming from, but this is a specific episode. Perhaps asking what McColm’s specific and demonstrable claims were could also have been included – to simply make soothing noises and claim that there are bad people on both sides implies that he thinks that RevStu is on the wrong side of this – and without evidence beyond blogs and twitter streams that are already there i don’t see how.
      Just shows what a bit of grandoise bluster from a journo can do to a party filling up with what look like careerist know-betters like Jones (whose contributions you couldn’t help but notice).
      The independence process is well underway, I’ve been happy enough voting SNP as a vehicle for that so far and I think on balance I’ll stick with them for now, but it’s good to know that I can vote indy without having to stick with a particular party.
      Maybe indy supporters should just get off the internet for a while  – the SNP clearly think they have it covered, and maybe if everyone just ‘got a life’ for a month or so, we’d see no appreciable difference to the news cycle and people’s perceptions as to what’s going on.
      Anyway, busy day – hope it all blows over.

    97. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:


      Read my postings at 9:32 and 9:55pm on the 19th and then read this article in the Record today (21st).

      Do you think its coincidence or are the MSM journo’s reading the comments here on Wings???

    98. Indy says:

      “the kind of busybodies who can be arsed chapping doors when everyone else is having their tea” are the people who will actually win the referendum.  The referendum will not be won online. Nor will it be lost online either of course.
      Interaction with people who are not actually much interested in politics is crucial which is why you need to chap doors!  No way round that I am afraid.

    99. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      I’m always a bit baffled by the common assumption (by no means limited to the political sphere) that people online are somehow not real people, or are an inferior species (“internettus bampottus”). It seems ludicrous to discount 80% of the population because they happen to have access to a computer.

      I’m sure that some people will indeed only be persuaded by a face-to-face conversation with an activist on their doorstep. Others, however, WILL be won over by the facts and arguments alone, something for which websites are vital. And even among those who are persuaded on the doorstep by an activist, where will that activist have got the information to make their case from? Pound to a penny, one way or another, it’ll have been the internet.

      I’ve got no time for snobbery. Nobody here has said a word against doorstep activists, who do extremely important work – only against eejits trying to assert some sort of hierarchy over other independence campaigners.

      There isn’t a lot of point in my going out knocking doors in Bath. If you’d therefore like me to shut down the website, just say.

    100. Erchie says:

      There is also a hierarchy in the Nats allowed to comment, the first sign is that they will loudly and voluably criticise Newsnet (not that it can’t do with it, but these guys fetishise that) .
      The next sign is if their comments get through on Better Nation, that usually means that they are “safe” and “decent” and won’t challenge the vile abuse and lies that establishment figures are given a free pass on.
      And it is sad to see the old rock band “I was into them before they were famous” coming it to this, it’s more important than that, (*)
      (*) 79 Referendum if you must know

    101. Morag says:

      I say this having witnessed my local Yes group looking like nothing more than the local SNP group under a different banner.
      I had a similar experience.  I’m not criticising the experience of these people, and if it’s the case (as it probably is) that almost all the committed independence supporters in an area are SNP members, then obviously SNP people are going to be heavily involved.  It doesn’t worry me in terms of exclusivity or cliquishness or anything like that.
      It does worry me it terms of public perception.  I think it’s important for the public face of the Yes campaign to be more than the SNP.  Otherwise we’ll be stuck in the rut where criticism of the SNP is equivalent to criticism of the Yes campaign (and a sitting government is inevitably going to take quite a bit of criticism, it’s the nature of the job).  We’ll be facing the situation where arguments such as “Eck is fat” or “Mike Russell is an arrogant prick” do duty as anti-independence arguments.
      To that end I stood up and suggested that as many ordinary members as were willing should take off their SNP badges and campaign in public as Yes Scotland people for the next two years.  You’d think I’d just suggested keeping Trident and paying for its renewal.  Even the Yes Scotland people wouldn’t endorse the suggestion.  I thought my own branch convenor was going to gut me!  This is slightly depressing.
      I wasn’t suggesting anyone resign their SNP membership.  I’m certainly not going to do that!  I wasn’t suggesting anyone stop being active in their branch.  I was only suggesting that a public face of a non-party “Yes” proponent might be more valuable to the campaign than the double-badging I see people indulging in.  An SNP member supporting a “Yes” vote – now there’s a surprise.  And it’s not going to bring in anyone who is hostile to the SNP.  An ordinary Joe or Jo Public supporting a “Yes” vote is I think more telling.
      I joined the SNP 20 years ago not because I wanted to take up politics or get involved in political campaigning in the usual sense.  I joined the SNP because it was at that time (and indeed right up till this year) the only independence movement we had.  I see myself more as Jo Public than I do as a political animal (though the people who see me leafleting and checking polling stations might have other ideas).  I’m going to take the SNP sticker off my car, and only wear SNP badges at actual party events now.
      I guess the convenor will be after me with a big stick, but I honestly think it’s the right thing to do.

    102. Morag says:

      Ha bloody ha!  They may disapprove of the concept in the abstract, but they’re bloody well doing it.

    103. Indy says:

      I am not suggesting people online are an inferior species. But I do suggest that people who are interested in political blogs or are engaged in political debate online probably already know which way they are inclined to vote. It is the vast majority of people who don’t visit political websites or discussion forums who are going to win or lose this. 80 pc of people have access to the internet yes – but are you seriously arguing that they use that access to follow the independence debate online?  Come on.
      If there is no other reason to get out there is this one – the unionists are out chapping doors and telling people if they vote yes they will lose their pension. If they vote yes they will lose their tax credits. If they vote yes they will lose their job.  They are telling people that the Scottish Government is responsible for welfare reform – that it is because of the Scottish Government that people are losing their disability benefits. I have heard all of those things from people. The Labourites aren’t going to say that online because obviously it’s a lie but they will say it on the doorsteps and the only way to rebut that is also on the doorsteps.

    104. Morag says:

      Seriously, Indy, while you make a good point, how many people do the No campaign actually have out there and how many doors are they chapping in November with nearly two years to go?

    105. Indy says:

      Seriously Morag the MPs are out working.  They have the most to lose after all. And all they have to do is spread misinformation, they don’t have to actually persuade anybody. Some Lab people have already virtually admitted this is their tactic – see Ian Smart’s blog, he mentions it.

    106. Morag says:

      Oh, I’m sure they’re spreading misinformation.  But you’re talking about a vanishingly tiny number of people.  As far as door-knocking goes, it takes a lot of boots on the ground to make a significant impact.  I’m not convinced it’s time to worry about knocking doors – most people don’t want their doors knocked about this issue at such an early stage anyway.

    107. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “But I do suggest that people who are interested in political blogs or are engaged in political debate online probably already know which way they are inclined to vote.”

      That’s certainly partly true. But one of the goals of this site, at least, is to draw in people other than politics nerds, which is why we write sometimes about Rangers and have the odd light-hearted or broader piece. We have 20,000 readers already, 99% of whom don’t comment – I don’t think they’re all politics nerds. How long would it take me and the other contributors here to knock 20,000 doors, and how much info could we convey to those people in the few minutes we’d have with them?

      (And as I’ve said, knocking doors in Bath and banging on about Scottish independence would just get me a punch in the mouth anyway, and garner precisely no votes for the cause.)

    108. Juteman says:

      I have introduced non politicos to the independence issues by using blogs such as this. I used the football posts to draw a few football fans at work to Wings. Hopefully they’ll read other arcticles whilst on the site.

      Auld Acquantance had a ‘football’ related post a while ago that i ‘used’ in the same way.
        Slowly slowly catchee monkey.

      Most folk who read the red tops at my workplace pay little interest to the political stories. The editors know this, so use lurid headlines that stick in peoples minds whilst they are turning to the football pages.

    109. Doug Daniel says:

      I admit I was being a bit unfair saying “the kind of busybodies who can be arsed chapping doors when everyone else is having their tea”, but the point I’m getting at is that if this is just going to be run like a normal political campaign, then we’ll just see the same activists, except with Yes Scotland badges instead of SNP badges.

      I’ve now been CCed into several emails about a meeting that was getting arranged for my local Yes group. From what I can gather, it’s a few councillors and a couple of SNP activists, and they were arranging to set up a meeting in an SNP MSP’s office, then when that didn’t prove possible, to the office of the SNP’s council leader. So already, the local SNP group are trying to take charge and decide how the local campaign is going to be run.

      We need to get people involved who don’t usually go campaigning. The fact is that there are people, like myself, who want to help somehow, but who are prevented from doing the usual campaigning at 5:30pm on weekdays (I’m still stuck in traffic) or 10am on a Saturday (I’m having a well-deserved lie-in). As I said at the inaugural meeting, communication has been poor so far, and that’s not going to improve by a handful of activists and councillors chatting amongst themselves about going out at the usual times, but with Yes Scotland flyers instead of SNP ones.

      Besides, in the 12 years since I reached voting age, I’ve not had a single activist – from any party – chap on my door, except when the SNP were trying to drum up voters for the local elections this year. That’s the beauty of the internet – you don’t need to wait for the information to come to you, you can go to it yourself. And yes, we’re perhaps talking to the already converted at times, but clearly new people get interested all the time, because otherwise I would know every single contributor to online debate off by heart by now.

      If anything is going to change people’s minds, it’s the media. That way we don’t have to rely on people being in their home when activists come knocking, nor do we have to rely on them visiting pro-indy websites. And that’s why, for all their protestations about the Evil Cybernats bullying them by doing nasty things like pointing out when they’ve said something wrong, the media have to be forced to shape up.

    110. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:


      I’m a good case in point that the internet works. I wasnt an independence supporter but reading scotland articles and the comments showed me information that didnt add up to what the MSM were peddling and made me dig deeper.

      Its that opening of peoples eyes and providing them with a place they can come to for information that blogs like this do so well.

      I dont know if what I write on blogs or posts on articles gets anyone to change their mind, but it provides the possibility that they might and given that I cant go out leafleting and door chapping due to family committments its better than twiddling my thumbs for 2 years!

      Door chapping is necessary, no doubt, but in todays world the biggest impact will be media coverage.

      P.S. I was also at the Aberdeen launch and was underwhelmed to say the least. I think you were 2nd or 3rd row from the back. I was going to chat to you but you were distracted talking to another group. Maybe next time.

    111. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I’m a good case in point that the internet works. I wasnt an independence supporter but reading scotland articles and the comments showed me information that didnt add up to what the MSM were peddling and made me dig deeper.”

      There’s another point – even if you think doorknockers are the key, you can’t overlook the power of the internet to turn someone INTO a doorknocker…

    112. Doug Daniel says:


      I wasn’t distracted, I was famished! I headed straight home for my lunch. I maybe looked like I was chatting when I was trying to barge past people 😛

      I thought there was some good stuff in the launch, and I liked the fact about Darling avoiding debates with Blair Jenkins, but I did think a few of the questions weren’t really answered sufficiently, and it didn’t help matters that the red-headed woman from Lanarkshire seemed to think we were all there to hear her speak rather than the Yes Scotland guys.

      Where were you sitting incidentally? 

    113. Scott Minto (Aka Sneekyboy) says:


      I was at the front and answered the question of the guy in the middle rows that was talking about “would we be better off financially”.

      At points it was excrutiating the lack of answers though. Examples:

      1) The chap who mentioned borders – I just wanted to explain the EEA for trade and talk about Northern Ireland and the Common Travel Area
      2) The girl who talked about being english in Scotland and what would her citizenship be – I felt like turning round and saying that NI can have dual nationality and there would be no reason to suppose otherwise in indy scotland. In any case she can keep her current passport and live here as member of EEA or get scottish passport based on residency.
      3) How do you get in touch with people in your area to pool resources – Not answered
      4) Can you give us a starter pack so we can have info to begin campaigning with – No, you need to ask us for everything individually (why they couldnt get a blimmin starter pack together online to be printed off I will never know)

      OK – So these questions dont affect me personally but it made me wonder how many people are put off helping due to lack of support.

    114. Doug Daniel says:

      Ahhh, yes I remember that (although I have completely forgotten what you looked like or what you said – memory like a sieve.)

      The girl asking about being English/Scottish was the one I had in mind too. I was actually very close to saying “I don’t think that really answered the girl’s question”, because what she got was just “it’s okay, everything is fine” waffle, rather than the sort of answer you and I would have given. She seems to be exactly the sort of person we’re meant to be focussing on, but if I was her I wouldn’t have been satisfied with the answer.

      And as you say, my question about pooling resources wasn’t answered. I’ve since had an SNP councillor volunteer to help with the Twitter feed, and the Facebook guy has been in touch too, but there’s still no drive to say what we should be doing or saying. I think I might contact Stewart Kilpatrick… 

    115. KOF says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      22 November, 2012 at 12:54 pm

      “I’m a good case in point that the internet works. I wasnt an independence supporter but reading scotland articles and the comments showed me information that didnt add up to what the MSM were peddling and made me dig deeper.”
      There’s another point – even if you think doorknockers are the key, you can’t overlook the power of the internet to turn someone INTO a doorknocker…

      And if one gives people web addresses of pertinent sites, where they can find out their own information, read discussions, etc, maybe it’ll become self replicating?   (I would see the list of websites being everything from WoS and the McCrone report to Labour Hame.)

      Infect someone with curiosity and the means to satisfy that curiosity.  

    116. Garve says:

      Euan Mccolm’s article on hatred in SoS today is very thoughtful. If he’s genuine in what he says then he deserves a lot of credit for writing it.

    117. cadgers says:

      Seasick Dave says:
      19 November, 2012 at 1:37 pm
      He seems particularily thin skinned; pet lamb.”
      I’m patial to lamb curry.

    118. cadgers says:

      Seasick Dave says:
      19 November, 2012 at 1:37 pm
      He seems particularily thin skinned; pet lamb.”
      I’m partial to lamb curry.

    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