I noticed earlier this afternoon that Stuart Campbell has removed Scot Goes Pop from the links list on Wings. It doesn't take a genius to work out that this is an act of symbolic retaliation for the scepticism I've shown towards the idea of a Wings political party. For obvious reasons, I've now removed Wings from the link list on the desktop version of this site, after what I think must be around seven years or so. I'm sure that won't make a huge amount of difference to Stuart, but as a matter of principle I obviously don't want traffic to flow in one direction if a conscious decision has been taken to stop it flowing in the other direction.
I want to make clear that - at least as far as I'm concerned - this doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, a new Berlin Wall in the Yes blogosphere. There's always been a large amount of overlap between the readerships of the two sites, and I see no reason why that shouldn't continue to be the case. Long-term readers will know that I've always been extremely supportive of Stuart, even when the self-appointed Yes establishment has been ranged against him. I have a particularly vivid memory of vociferously defending him in a tense face-to-face meeting with Mike Small and Angela Haggerty in early 2017. From Angela's reaction, I got the distinct impression that was the first time anyone had ever been brave enough to express some of those views to her in person, rather than on social media. So it will hopefully be plain to any fair-minded reader that there is no personal agenda of any type behind the criticisms I've made of the Wings party proposal. I've said that it's a foolish idea which risks costing us pro-indy seats at Holyrood for the simple reason that I genuinely believe that to be true. I've been absolutely consistent on this issue over the years, and it's Stuart that has done the 180 degree turn. I defy anyone to read his blogpost in 2016 stating that attempts to game the Holyrood voting system were a "mug's game", and then conclude that the views he expressed in it are remotely reconcilable with what he is saying now. The impossibility of gaming the system hasn't changed over the last three years - all that's changed is that he now sees his own beliefs on the trans issue, rather than radical left people in RISE and the Greens, as being the beneficiary of any 'tactical voting'.
I think there ought to be room for honest disagreement between people who are basically allies. Stuart appears to take a different view, and that's disappointing, but he'll have to make his own choices. In the meantime, Scot Goes Pop will be going nowhere, and you can always rely on me to independently call things the way I see them, without fear or favour.
A wee bit typical of Stu. He has no tome for a dissenting voice
ReplyDeleteSeems a bit strange, wings provides link to Curtice's site while discontinuing James's. Scotland goes pop is the main go to site for poll analysis for many. Will go directly however regret wings action !!
DeleteThe rev stu is nothing more than a self appointed toilet brush
ReplyDeleteSays the Gutless Toilet!
DeleteShe's cakey.
DeleteAnd you are the toilet.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't for that, or I'd have done it much sooner. It was for whining to Twitter about Gavin Barrie and getting him banned.
ReplyDelete(I mean, the sheer sustained *vehemence* of your opposition to a Wings party is astonishing, given that I've already said we'll do the polling and if it looks like there's any chance of it damaging pro-indy representation then we won't stand. But you've been banging on about that for weeks now and I didn't delink you. It's what you did to Gavin that was just too pathetic to bear.)
DeleteYes, I bet someone £1000 that the Gavin Barrie thing was going to be your cover story. You're nothing if not predictable, Stuart. Frankly, I think the decision on whether I should report an outrageously abusive tweet calling me a "dishonest c**t" is a matter for me and not for anyone else. I suspect, though, that most people in my position would have made an identical decision. There's no reason why anyone should have to put up with that kind of abuse.
DeleteOf course it's your decision. Just like who I link to is mine.
DeleteFuck sake. Indy is supposed to be an SNP cult where there is no dissent you two.
Delete"Just like who I link to is mine."
DeleteQuite so. I reserve the right to comment on it and draw the obvious conclusions from it, but I don't dispute your right to do it.
Have to say gentlemen that I tend to strongly agree with the Skier...!
DeleteRev Stu is best ignored James. He's fast becoming a liability to the Indy cause. The guy has a massive ego which is fed by a loyal band of 2000 - 3000 people who are happy to fund his website and his court battles. He's always been good at deconstructing poor articles in the Unionist press but anything outside of that he's basically an opinionated arse who doesn't like being challenged.
DeleteJames, we had a lengthy conversation where you disagreed with my opinion. I offered to send you the work once my two colleagues had finished validating it. I believed you had accepted that offer. We finished the conversation.
DeleteI then find out you'd blogged an article, naming me and rubbishing my opinion and work without having the decency to tell me. That hurt a great deal.
I lost my temper and swore at you. I apologised publicly later, which you admitted you had seen, but didn't have the courtesy to acknowledge.
In the mean time you'd reported me to twitter for swearing at you.
Despite me apologising and you seeing that apology, you didn't withdraw the twitter complaint.
I'm 2 days through a 7 day ban.
I'm quite shocked at your behaviour and the fights you've subsequently picked with other indy supporters.
Proportional response?
Hi Gavin, thanks for your comment, and I'm going to reply in detail. You're probably not going to like my reply, but I do think you need to hear this, because some of what you've said over the last couple of days seems somewhat out of touch with reality.
Delete"I believed you had accepted that offer."
There is nothing, absolutely nothing I said during my exchange with you that could possibly have been construed - even at a stretch - as acceptance of your offer. I did not show any interest in your offer whatsoever. The whole point I was making is that it didn't matter what your modelling had shown, because it was literally impossible for it to support the claim you had just made, ie. that the worst case scenario was that the Wings party would win sixteen seats while costing the SNP only two. It was that ludicrous claim I was debunking, not any detailed modelling that I hadn't seen.
"I then find out you'd blogged an article, naming me and rubbishing my opinion and work without having the decency to tell me. That hurt a great deal."
Contrary to the claims you have repeatedly made on Twitter, that blogpost (which in fact only mentioned you in passing) was not abusive or derogatory towards you, and it did not misrepresent anything you had said. There is nothing outrageous, or even remarkable, about mentioning a person by name in a blogpost without notifying that person in advance. I have been named in countless blogposts over the years, often in a critical way, and to the best of my recollection I have never once been given prior notice. It would never even have occurred to me to expect or want any notice.
(To be continued in next comment...)
In a nutshell, the blogpost was entirely legitimate, and you quite literally had nothing to complain about. Even now, it seems to me that you're angry but don't quite know why. The post didn't actually "rubbish your work", but there would have been nothing wrong with that even if it had done. If you put something into the public domain, it's there to be publicly analysed and criticised. That's the way it works. There's no unconditional love in political debate.
Delete"I apologised publicly later, which you admitted you had seen, but didn't have the courtesy to acknowledge."
Again, I'm not sure what you're actually complaining about here. What is the difference between "admitting I had seen" something and "acknowledging" it? Is there any difference at all? If you mean I didn't contact you directly to "acknowledge" it, that's a very odd complaint, because you blocked me after our exchange and I don't have your contact details. Perhaps you should have apologised directly if you wanted a direct acknowledgement, rather than apologising into space but not accepting an acknowledgement into space as sufficient.
"In the mean time you'd reported me to twitter for swearing at you."
The very first thing I said to you after your abusive tweet (and let's call a spade a spade - this is about extreme abuse, not about "swearing") was that I wasn't going to tolerate that kind of abuse from you or from anyone else. That meant I had just reported it. I was giving you space to reflect, and you could have then deleted the tweet, which would plainly have been the best thing for both of us. Instead, you left the tweet up and doubled down by calling me a "dishonest c**t" at least twice more within the next five minutes.
"Despite me apologising and you seeing that apology, you didn't withdraw the twitter complaint."
I have only ever reported four tweets in my ten years on Twitter, so I'm not an expert on the reporting procedure and I wasn't actually aware that there was any way of withdrawing a report. (I'm taking your word for it that there is, by the way - I've no idea whether that's true.) Would I have withdrawn it I had known that was possible? I'm not sure. I think really the onus was on you to delete the offending tweets, and that would have solved your own problem.
"I'm 2 days through a 7 day ban."
Yes, both you and Stuart appear to be treating a 7 day Twitter suspension as the equivalent of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In other circumstances that would be rather comical. I sympathise with you in your plight, I suppose, but please be honest with yourself if not with me. It was your own actions, not mine, that were ultimately responsible for your very brief suspension.
"I'm quite shocked at your behaviour and the fights you've subsequently picked with other indy supporters."
I have not "picked fights" with anyone since my exchange with you. That's an extraordinarily brazen abuse of the English language from someone who just a couple of days ago subjected me to by far the most extreme abuse I have ever encountered on social media - and that's saying something. I'm guessing that by "picking fights" you're referring to me standing my ground with people who have tried, and inevitably failed, to portray you as the victim in this situation.
"Proportional response?"
Yes, Gavin, using the report function on Twitter was a proportional response to a tweet containing extreme abuse. In fact, that circumstance is quite literally what the report function is actually there for.
Ok, useful point to note, you don't value apologies. Fair enough.
DeleteI'm not going to offer pithy responses or pick an arguement. Your view of events leaves no wriggle room to engage and since you won't and haven't accepted a well meant apology from me, well I guess that's the end of that.
I did value the apology when I first saw it. I don't value it as much now, because your outburst this evening leaves little room for doubt that it was insincere.
DeleteI really wish that you all, James, Stu and Gavin, would just have a meaningful offline discussion about all these matters and simply agree to disagree if you must. Bury the hatchet because this spat causes more harm than good to the cause of independence. We are stronger as a united front after all, are we not? This does not mean we cannot disagree with one another on topics, as the thoughts on independence and how to get there are, and quite rightly should be, diverse. I have great respect for you all but descending into to this nonsense as a result of a disagreement doesn't look good on any of you quite frankly. So, my questions are; Who's going to extend the olive branch? Will you all agree to either meet up in person, or have a Skype call or something, to put this bickering to rest and let bygones be bygones for crying out loud?
DeleteI think Stu has lost his way recently, few relevant articles and selective on what is tweeted or retweeted(compare to Fosh for example), considering recent events in scottish and uk parliaments.
ReplyDeleteDon't know if this was is due to the court case and/or interview and chat with Alex.
He is far too critical of SNP (and Nicola personally in particular).
I agree with his position on GRA, but this is has had too much focus and indy output has suffered. Not sure why, it is either indy critical for him or usefully Nicola critical.
Maybe there is something Stu now knows that can't be shared.
But wish we had the old pre-GRA, Kezia, Alex Stu back.
Rev Stu hasn't been himself ever since he came up against a lesbian in court standing up for the lgbt community. His wings got clipped like a scruffy tampon
ReplyDeleteWhen was this? I remember a man who defended himself against a lying scumbag abusing their power as an MSP to defame him.
DeleteAlso Kez is going to lose the appeal, be bankrupted and be hoofed out of Scotland along with her pretend SNP member bursd.
Erm, the lesbian in question was standing up for herself, not the 'community'; and I seem to recall the judge repudiating her for falsely claiming Stu to be homophobic. There are plenty in the 'community' who agreed that his joke was not homophobic, and Dugdale certainly does not speak for them - myself included.
DeleteMaybe so, but it's hard to disagree that losing the case seems to have sent him off the rails a tad.
DeleteI don’t completely disagree with him on the SNP. It’s the trans comments that have put me off. It’s not necessarily transphobic to be opposed to the GRA but some of Stu’s comments have gone beyond that and it seems to be his main priority. Repeatedly referring to trans women as men, spreading myths about trans people and the new legislation. As well as not listening to those who disagree (which is nothing new) Why has he picked this hill to die on?
ReplyDeleteHis analysis hasn’t been on top form either. Saying Kezia Dugdale is responsible for the current mess the whole UK is in (saying the tories won their Scottish seats because of her ‘vote Tory in the borders and the highlands’ on Sky News which I doubt many even saw) is...a reach. Such a shame from the blog that converted me to Indy.
There is no such thing as transphobia.
DeleteTrans-women ARE men. Please to be providing any other definition that works in this universe.
Kez was the leaderene of the Scottish branch of the redtoryScotophobisyooniomperialist party. She decided to campaign for the election of conservative MPs. She was responsible for installing paper candidates in SNP held seats. She did that with the sole aim of removing SNP Mps and replacing them with yoon nazis from her beloved Roofie's party.
Facts are facts. Always have been and always will be.
Sorry, but the definition of a transwoman is a 'a male who emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite (female) sex'.
DeleteA transwoman is a male, just as a transman is female. To be trans, you must be of the opposite sex to which you identify. if that were not the case, you'd just be 'cis'.
Not sure how that disproves existence of transphobia, anon.
Delete‘There is no such thing as transphobia’ Christ. So I guess actual physical hate crimes are just a coincidence.
DeleteThe hatred and obsession with trans people is like homophobia 30 years ago. Baseless scare stories. Polls show the vast majority of what you’d call real women would be fine with trans women in toilets etc (which has already been happening for years)
There is definitely transphobia. However, trans people (and LGBT in general) are as unpleasant, abusive, racist, homophobic / heterophobic, as everyone else. Your sexuality/trans status does not change this aspect of people. ~1/3 of trans will be variably racist just as ~1/3 of the population as whole is...
DeleteA certain % of trans women are violent rapists etc too; at least the same proportion as per men in general. However, transwomen may find rape easier to commit if they have access to vulnerable females. So this is a valid concern.
Pointing this out isn't transphobic, but abusive people / violent rapist phobic and pro equal rights (e.g. protecting female rights too).
I think Stuart Campbell crosses the line too often, saying things he knows will stir the pot a bit (although people choose to follow him on twitter etc, so can't really complain as they are free not to). However, I have never seen him attack innocent, law abiding trans people; only those who threaten women with baseball bats and nail rats to rape centre door frames.
Why don't transmen (particularly pre-op) use the gents?
DeleteThey do - though not the urinals (for obvious reasons).
DeleteSame reason as women don't use the gents. A 'transman' ie a man who has revived a gender change certificate is legally a woman, so obviously she can use the woman's toilets.
DeleteI have never seen a biological female in the gents toilets / changing rooms in my entire life.
DeleteHas anyone else?
I've seen a decent number of transwomen walking around over the years and probably some transmen (although these don't tend to stand out as much in terms of attire), but never once have I seen an adult female (biological) using the male toilets / changing rooms / showering facilities.
Of course as fairly large male, I would not feel threatened by that. At the same time, I pose no threat, even if I am large. However, a transman does not know that as they don't know me.
I mean, do people think it wise that e.g. a petite 16 year old pre-op transman use the male showers? Is this something to be encouraged? What about a lonely public park toilet late at night? That must be encouraged if we are to be progressive yes?
If the answer is no, this should not be encouraged, then our young transman should still use the use the female facilities. But then how is that equality? If one group (trans in this case) can use both based on how they feel, then cis should be able to do that to, otherwise it's not equality.
#devilsadvocate
I might add that should e.g. pre-teen and teen transboys not use the (adult) male facilities too? Is that to be encouraged?
DeleteIf not, why not?
Remember, no transphobia! And of course we must be equal. If one group can pick and choose as it suits, all groups must be able to!
cis men can pick and choose the same as transmen can. There is no law 'generally' saying that men cannot use female toilets/ changing rooms showers.
DeleteI say generally because under the Equality Act providers of toilets changing rooms etc are allowed to apply for the toilet changing room to be for 'females' only.
You mean I, as a 'cis male', can use the women's changing room / showers / toilet at the local sport centre? This is fine and nobody would complain / I wouldn't be chucked out?
DeleteAnyway, if so, trans currently have all the rights / access they need, and any GRA reform is therefore unnecessary.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI mean that it would not be illegal for you to do so yes, unless it has been designated a 'female safe area'.
DeleteGRA reform is not about access it is regarding self id.
Ok, so no birth or gender recognition certificate (GRC) needed for use of 'non-official' same sex facilities (pubs, restaurants, bars, sports centres...).
DeleteAlso, a GRC will not e.g. get a transwoman into official 'female safe areas' (e.g. rape crisis centres).
This negates any need for transpeople to get a GRC and so negates the need for any GRC changes, including self-id. The certificate offers no obvious benefit. Not in terms of access to places / services.
Which means the certificate is simply to make them happier? In which case, forget any form of ID to obtain it; just let people download one and print it out. They can id as whatever they like. Even frame it and put it behind their desk at work. I can identify as young man in his mid twenties with the body of arnold schwarzenegger (at that age obviously).
As long as we have official records of sex at birth too (and real age), I see no problem here.
We should however, probably make it necessary to indicate whether your 'same sex only facilities' are actually that or not. This logical fallacy (and there are many in this debate!) is key for me, i.e. what is the point of having a ladies and a gents if both sexes are just picking the one they want and using that? It's ludicrous. As a scientist I cannot comprehend why anyone would not think such a thing simply mad. Just knock the wall through and be done with it.
Anyway, I am playing the devil's advocate here, and thanks for responding sensibly with factual arguments. Sadly, that doesn't seem to have been the way this issue has been dealt with so far, which is why it's become such a hot potato.
I believe in live and let live. As long as we live in a world where official things are based on scientific fact and common sense that is.
Back to brexit!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is really disappointing. Both of of you - James Kelly and Stuart Campbell - are enormously thoughtful and talented poitical thinkers and writers. Thousands of people read your outputs every day. You are on the same side. I would encourage you to reflect on, and learn from, whatever it is that has happened between you. The struggle for independence is entering a critical period. We all need to be willing to work together.
ReplyDeleteExactly. This sort of stooshie is exactly what the other side want.
DeleteJames & Stu should get off their respective computers and go for a few pints together.
We live 500 miles apart and by the sounds of it neither of us drink alcohol, but other than that, good plan. Nothing has really "happened between us". I've posted publicly about my scepticism on the proposal for a new party, Stuart has become increasingly irate about those posts, and ultimately he's taken the decision he took today. Nothing more to it than that.
DeleteThis fracas is what we might expect after independence when the first step on the ladder has been reached and there's room for the luxury of dissent and realignment. Sad it's happening when we only have one foot on the wobbly ladder.
DeletePlease always remember that this is exactly what the Cummings Cratur is in business to foment. Till independence we need to appreciate each other.
DeleteComments on Gaelic were a bridge too far for me. Astonished that anyone in the national movement could hold such views.
ReplyDeleteI agree - that surprised me greatly.
DeleteThe link is still there, I came to this site tonight through it.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's gone. Maybe you were looking at a cached version.
DeleteHave to say young James that parliamentary opposition are shiting themselves to have a general election moreso as Corbyn seemed recently to want one. Arses nippin and lost salaries in abundance I suspect is the reason. The two comments above using my monica I disassociate from.
ReplyDeletePersonally, think Campbell's a bit of an arsehole, but nowhere near the saddo of an arsehole GWC is!
ReplyDeleteUnlike yours my arsium is intactium you Willie Wallace alter bhoy.
DeleteQ. Why are Girlie Woman Cordelia's front and back doors like Princess Margaret's chastity belt?
DeleteA. No lock on any of them. Open access.
Back to the Commons and lots of theories around about why the Gov let Kinnoks amendment get through by not providing No tellers.
ReplyDeleteI think a very likely one is that to follow the the Whip Theresa would of had to voted against her deal comming back to parliament. Maybe she had signalled that doing that was something that she would not be prepared to do. Having a former PM voting against the current Pm is never going to be a good look, hence they needed to find a way of stopping it happening.
The problem with the EU referendum is that lots of working class voted to leave. Now we cognisenty cannot allow those pheasants to have their way silly persons they are. Chin Chin.
DeleteI think a very likely one is that to follow the the Whip Theresa would of had to voted against her deal comming back to parliament. Maybe she had signalled that doing that was something that she would not be prepared to do. Having a former PM voting against the current Pm is never going to be a good look, hence they needed to find a way of stopping it happening.
DeleteIs there any evidence she would've been brave enough to do that, after failing to vote against no deal this week? Even if she had, kicking her oot would serve to reinforce the hardman image that Johnson is desperately trying to cultivate.
It's a shame that it has come to an argument which seems a bit lime blowing raspberries at one another.
ReplyDeleteI can understand that James believes that a party to challenge the SNP on indy as silly, but I can also understand the frustration that has led to the idea of a Wings Party.
With your knowledge and insight into Scottish politics it seems quite likely that you can agree to (say 20) scenarios of vote share models to see how translates to seats. That should provide evidence.
If I had the time and cash I'd set up an alternative to the SNP. They're wasting the political capital they have.
We need your analytical mind James. your what keeps me from despair sometimes. Your level headed and you've got Scotland's best future interests at heart. Don't worry, I read wings and your blog and I for one, and I'm sure there's many see the different energies both you and Stu bring to the Yes movement and debate. Your on the same side but have different thinkings. Things will be fine in time. I repeat we need your analytical skills
ReplyDeleteGwc is Rev and you can take that to the bank.
ReplyDeleteAlso the constant rangers thing, on and on. Most folk are far more passionate about football than politics and the two are unrelated to most.
ReplyDeleteArseholes on both sides, but the majority (from both sides) are decent people in my life experience
Not inviting, welcoming or required.
Isolates many and playing into the sectarian divide and conquer crap we have been dealing with for far too long.
The combative approach is never going to win any potential converts.
I honestly know only 1 person who is passionate about football. And he doesn't work for the Record or BBC.
DeleteI read (and have donated to) both here and wings, and I think its sad to see this disagreement. Hopefully this will simmer down over time, and we can all be friends again.
ReplyDeleteI will continue to visit both sites several times a day. I rarely comment on Wings though and much prefer it here where I think you get a much better standard of discussion.
ReplyDeleteBest way to resolve the issue is for Stu to run a poll (surely we are due one) and include Wings Party as a constituency option.
ReplyDeleteWe will then have the facts to base the discussion on.
And can then reconcile around this.
Rather than I said he said.
Easy Peasy
So James over to you,
ReplyDelete1. Whats the min % that a Wings party needs to obtain to make an impact on pro indy seats.
2. What is a reasonable estimate on the % uplift on current polling that could be attained through awareness / campaigning?
Or alternatively, how about we stop banging on about this purely hypothetical idea that won't even be put into practice except in specific scenarios, and concentrate on actual politics that is happening?
DeleteIdeally, but that won't stop the individual, independtly minded, incisive, invested in, incredibly important, indy ego's & id's squabbling with each other? We and they need to resolve this.
DeleteOr perhaps, no, maybe we are just genetically incapable..
"Except in specific scenarios."
DeleteWhat was the line about "everything before the 'but' is irrelevant"?
Well, as far as I can see, IF the SNP don't go for another referendum before 2021, and IF the polling (which hasn't been done) supports it, and IF the people actually want it, and IF it looks likely to actually help, then it may or may not happen in 2 years time.
DeleteAnd if it does happen, then I'd welcome your analysis then (as I also said in another comment, I read here and wings and donate to both), but I feel that until then, its just a purely hypothetical distraction.
Can we not all be friends until then?
I think where you're going wrong here is your implicit assumption that writing blogposts opposing the formation of a new party is somehow incompatible with remaining friends. It shouldn't be. It really shouldn't be. Why it has proved to be is something only Stuart can answer.
DeleteIt hasn't. You've been doing that for weeks and I kept the link up. I told you what I removed the link for.
DeleteThe sexual tension is crackling.
DeleteWhy don't the two of you get a room?
You Scottish Jocko people need to get in line for sucking miene boabie.
ReplyDeleteI do appreciate your adherence but I am knackered please give me a rest.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRemoving your link from WOS is a petty overreaction though not surprising. You were spot on a WOS party would make matters worse. I suspect it is more a reflection of his ego than anything else. Look at the consequences of the frankly foolish give your second vote to greens campaign at the last Scottish election .
ReplyDelete"Petty overreaction"? It's a matter of self-respect as much as anything. I could have done it quietly, but I've been open and above board about my reasons. I agree with the rest of your comment, though.
DeleteSorry , my point was meant to read that WOS was wrong for removing the link to your site,and he was the one being petty .
DeleteThis is sad, I read both and rarely miss an article on either site. The biggest man would be the one who puts back up the link of his opponent because Independence is not about either of you and denying information to anyone new that comes along looks a bit daft IMO.
ReplyDeleteThe Wings party is an idea, that's it and it does not exist and more than likely never will, we will have to wait and see. What the "idea" done though was stir the porridge and get an awful lot of people all hot and bothered and that seems to have become a trademark of Wings.
I know that the two of you will read this, which one of you will pick up the phone and take the first step to get over this squabble. Your both too important to the Independence movement and it's not all about YOU.
I'm posting this on Wings as well for obvious reasons.
You are a nonentity like most Nat sis. It is either Scottish Independence or slavery to the EU bum boys.
DeleteHi pumpkin. Love you. See you in the backroom later.
DeleteEdna do you like kinky sex. Sare bum stuff!
DeleteI remember you beginning for it last time, so that's why I'm offering the carrot and stick again.
Delete.... all I'll add, James, is that I think Stuart Campbell's reaction is misguided and that your analysis was balanced & objective ..... I can only hope Stuart will "take stock" and reflect on his decision ... which I deem to be an error in judgement.
ReplyDeleteIn the interim, I'll still be reading your articles.
ScotsCanuck
That won't happen. The Rev would need to admit being wrong and he doesn't do wrong. Yet the cad blocked me from his Twitter feed for disagreeing with him on something. Not for abuse, just for disagreement.
DeleteThat's the way he rolls. His way or the highway.
Try to pay attention. I didn't remove him for his analysis. I removed him for petulantly silencing a valuable indy voice.
Delete"I removed him for petulantly silencing a valuable indy voice"
DeleteOh the irony.
Hi James. I've sent you an email regarding a speaking engagement if you are up for it? Thanks, Jim Cassidy (Airdrie for Independence)
ReplyDeleteHello James - You really should reintroduce the link to Wings as this is not the way either should behave. we are all on the same side here and should be promoting all voices that support yes. The problem I have is that if there is a Wings party how can we trust it to behave responsibly if a disagreement between two individuals goes like this? Apart from the issue of a wings party's policies - splitting the vote with one party being a loose cannon is not going to help the cause of independence.
ReplyDeleteI'm more than happy to reintroduce a *reciprocal* link, but it does take two to tango, and I'm not holding my breath.
DeleteI am anon 10.01 - I agree it takes two to tango but the higher moral ground lies with you if you restore the link. This carry-on might well be a good thing for us all though. We have now seen the way Stu (and I find his site very informative useful) reacts to criticism. Imagine the possible tensions that could arise in the YES movement if a Wings group in parliament adopted similar behaviour when Nicola took a different line to his MSPs. Talk about exposing yourself.
Deletetalking up scotland has gone too? it was handy having it all in one place and may start to affect his visitor numbers and influince the site had previously.
ReplyDeleteThat's odd. I got the impression John was quite supportive of Wings?
DeleteStrange. That's an odd one to dump.
DeleteIt appeared to be gone when I checked. That's why I removed it.
DeleteStuart Campbell blocked me from his twitter, posting comments on Wings
ReplyDeleteand put me on his blocklist because he lost a polite discussion with me on gender balanced selection procedures for MPs & MSPs.
I still read Wings because he is good at what he does.
I also took his side in disputes he's had with other Journalists and politicians.
But he is a flawed individual at times, and tends to throw a tantrum when he is confronted with the logical flaws in some of the positions he takes.
This is why I could never support his Wings party and him having any input in the running of a country, never mind the maths, which I happen to agree with James on.
And anyone who uses his blocklist should be aware that they are not only blocking trolls, they are blocking some constructive voices in the indy community just because Stu doesn't like them - and you should never self censor yourself based on the views of another person.
Yes, when I was on the blocklist a few years ago, I checked some of the other names and my jaw dropped to the floor. There were people like Maurice Smith and Kirsten Innes.
DeleteI wholeheartedly support your position, James. Stu Campbell has recently taken some positions with which I cannot agree, such as his stance on trans people, and has rehearsed at least one Unionist lie which he should have known was a lie - that Nicola Sturgeon was "unelected" as First Minister. Similarly, I have always disagreed with his position on Gaelic, for what I believer a necessary and sufficient reasons.
ReplyDeleteI agree too with your analysis that a new Wings party will not have the effect he claims to want, but rather the reverse. A Wings party is at best a distraction and at worst a threat to the independence movement.
Sturgeon was elected. Campbell is wrong to say that. She stood against Wullie Rennie I recall, and Davidson before that.
DeleteHer method of election is standard for PR parliaments / non-presidential systems.
Boris has never been elected by house or electorate.
Is Boris Johnson's brother anti-English?
ReplyDeleteIt's just he says he can't stomach the way the UK is being governed. He's even resigned over it.
The purge of the more moderate one nation British unionist Tories by the right wing English nationalists is now well under way.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you removed that comment. It made me livid.
DeleteI blocked Stuart/Wings after 6 years promoting him and his blogsite and defending him when so many were attacking him on homophobia and transphobia. It seems if you make a comment that doesn't fit in with the person who seems to think he alone can win us Indy, you get insulted by Stuart and his followers. I'm done with Wings, he is now so far up his own arse that personally he and his diehards will be the ones to lose us Independence. We already have several divides and the Yes movement which was very much together of a diversity of Yessers, are now doing what the unionists want, imploding and it reminds me of our majority of sporting teams for Scotland, we do well for a while and when it matters, we shoot ourselves in the foot..this is what I fear will now happen.
ReplyDeleteThe faction that is behind Stuart seem to think they ARE the Yes movement and anyone who disagrees is insulted. Nasty Yessers will never persuade soft Noes to Yes, one abusive Yesser was pretty abusive because I had an opinion on the list vote, she has often pretty much told anyone and everyone to "piss off", this is not how you win new Yessers and all the previous Noes will see is an infighting Yes movement that are acting like radicals in my opinion which is NOT what Yes movement is about.
We went from 25% to 45% because even when being abused by the BetterTogether people, we were polite and welcome, not so now, too many have such a deep hatred for Nicola and SNP, all because she doesn't jump to their command. She is First Minister for ALL Scotland, ALL Scots of ALL parties and not just a First Minister of the Yes Movement and Indy, she is acting like a First Minister should act, doing the day job which under these circumstances must be damned difficult, she is more than proving to the unionist people that she is a strong and able First Minister to run an Indy Scotland, THAT is how we get people to believe in Indy, not Indy NOW demands.
I really do believe when we have that one chance, we've feck it up and shoot ourselves in foot because there is so much division and the list vote has always been a problem but I know these diehards won't just stop at voting for Stuart for list, they'll do anything to get him & his party in power and we seen what UKIP did, took away votes from Tories....we all know that Stuart only appeals to a certain few who would abandon SNP for him, most people though trust SNP far more than him. He does a lot with his blogs but so do you and many, many others, Stuart is not God but some treat him as such and he gets a lot of money so he is getting well paid to do what we praise him for.
Can you imagine if Nicola started blocking people that didn't agree with her, as a leader she has to take it on chin, Stuart has always been a mass blocker at the least wee thing. Not exactly leadership material.
Good post and 100% correct. Rev Stu is fast becoming a liability for the Indy movement. He has a huge ego which is fed by a couple of thousand followers who are happy to fund his website and his court battles. He has always been good at deconstructing dodgy articles in the Unionist press but, that apart, he is just an opinionated arse who can't handle anybody challenging him.
DeleteTabs for the yougov poll:
ReplyDeletehttps://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/o91qppx58r/TheTimes_190903_ScotlandVI_Trackers_ww.pdf
They appear to have had the usual difficulty getting youngsters. Oldies downweighted quite a lot. Also a fair bit of false recall as they have to upweight the 2017 "did not votes" by almost half.
Actually more than half! 192->299
DeleteGood tae see the fascist undemocratic Nat sis falling oot. That Stu bloke has as much chance of political power as Ted Heath.
ReplyDeleteWho was PM
DeleteWell I will continue to visit both sites, share articles and ignore the disagreements here online, as far as possible.
ReplyDeleteI go to Wee Ginger Dug, WoS and SGP pretty much every day to keep up with what's going on in dysfunctional UK, or rather what's going on with the disgraceful anti democratic near fascist English government and what therefore is happening with regard to Scotland
as a country held hostage to this dreadful, dangerous neighbour.
Keep it peaceful, keep doing what you are doing both of you, don't let the bastrds control the narrative in any way.
Scotland needs these blogs, we have no other pro Scotland media, not even the National. They are not pro SNP that's for sure, and their stories are quite often lightweight in calling out the Britnats' total disregard and contempt for Scotland and the people of Scotland.
What I will take umbridge with is any major level of criticism of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP right now. I believe there are aspects of the party that do not have Scotland's interests at heart, but in general they are our only route to independence and their policies are very popular much as the Britnats lie and try to tell people otherwise. The gas lighting of the SNP and of Scotland has grown wings (no link to WoS intended!) and we need that countered professionally and consistently.
The Scottish government are by and large functioning and working for Scotland while pretty much being kept in the dark about the most disgusting attack on Scotland's future re Britnats' Brexit.
A mountain to climb if ever there was for any functioning government, is it not?
Have a good weekend all.
I missed the fall out between you, but my big brother was asking me what happended to the link to you on wings site so I had to go looking. Has he also removed John Robertsons site link too? This blocking folk who disagree with some of your opinions even if we are all aiming for the same outcome is so childish. Mhari Hunter has blocked me today cos I showed her the invoice from IDOX that proved me right & her wrong over IDOX involvement in UK & Scottish elections. She alse argues against the petition for International observers at next Indy Ref..yet we had then in 2014..she denies that & we that sent Scots MPs/MPS/Activists to observe Catalonias Vote. she was Nicolas Campaign mananger vbut did not know all this WTF? Something stinks...SNP politicians blocking voters for bringing them to book??
ReplyDelete