Stuart's tweet whipped his followers up into a frenzy of anti-iScot hate, and there were a number of comments along the lines of "I'd cancel my subscription if I was actually a subscriber!" Basically he's got them believing that my column is the rough equivalent of the hit piece that was published by CommonSpace several years ago - but it's actually nothing of the sort, as he helpfully demonstrated by tweeting screenshots of the full article, showing that I simply discussed the potential pitfalls of a Wings party in a perfectly reasonable manner. If Stuart is serious about entering the political fray, is it really his position that he'll regard any newspaper or magazine editor as 'the enemy' if they don't censor columns that speak about his party in anything less than the most glowing terms? If so, that's rather sinister.
For the record, this was not an article I 'pitched' to the editor of iScot. I'm a regular columnist, and I have discretion to write about whatever I choose, within reason (for example I have to avoid anything that might cause legal difficulties). My fellow columnists Jason McCann and Peter A Bell have exactly the same discretion, which is why there have been a great many articles in iScot over the years expressing support for Stuart. The fact that the baying mob are blaming iScot rather than myself for the contents of my column is utterly ludicrous - not least because I've met Ken (the editor), and I know that he's very supportive of Stuart and that in all likelihood he disagrees with the article. But he doesn't tell his columnists what they can and can't write about, which is frankly something that Stuart, as a critic of the groupthink in the mainstream media, ought to heartily approve of.