Well, budding politician Stuart Campbell has now declared all-out war on this blog on social media - he's just launched a barrage of his trademark invective and abuse, including calling me a "c**t" on two separate occasions. It's blindingly obvious this is simply because he can't tolerate any dissent, however politely expressed, against his foolish plans to launch his own pro-independence party in competition with the SNP. For full disclosure, though, I should tell you he's claiming that's not the reason - he's insisting that the real explanation for choosing this remarkably convenient moment to suddenly decide that I'm a "c**t" is because I got one of his friends "banned" from Twitter, which he says is the most "despicable" thing he's seen recently. (The friend in question, who I reported because he also called me a "c**t" three times, is in fact only suspended from Twitter for seven days - a mild slap on the wrists that Stuart is trying with a straight face to pretend is akin to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.)
It's no secret that Stuart regularly lets himself down on social media - we've all seen it. But I think it's only really when you're directly on the receiving end of the abuse that you realise just how impossible it's going to be for this man to successfully launch a political career. An ordinary citizen, even a very high-profile blogger, can get away with things that the leader of a political party (and an aspirant Deputy First Minister, perhaps?) simply cannot. All that a half-competent journalist will have to do to discredit the Wings party in the eyes of voters is to read through Stuart's colourful tweet history...and it'll just go on and on and on. The only way that such a party could ever achieve a respectable vote would be on a sort of "Trumpian" basis, ie. by attracting voters who are indiscriminately angry at the world and want to find an abusive politician to vocalise that indiscriminate anger. I don't think any sensible person in the Yes movement should be following Stuart down that rabbit-hole.
Another more prosaic point that I don't think has received sufficient attention yet is that most political parties impose 'exclusivity' rules on their members. You might recall that in the aftermath of the indyref, many people tried to join both the SNP and Greens simultaneously, and had to be gently reminded that's against the rules. It's usually against the rules to even give active support to another party. I've already seen actual office bearers of the SNP at branch level expressing enthusiasm for the Wings party, and I'm not sure the penny has quite dropped for them yet that they could be making their own positions untenable in the long run. Does it matter if Wings supporters end up outside the SNP? I think it does, because the legitimate views held by Wings supporters (such as the desire for more urgency on independence, and gender critical views) need to be heard and fought for inside the SNP. If you want to end up with a careerist, devolutionist SNP government for the next twenty years, then the division caused by a Wings party could be the right way of going about it.
I know Wings supporters will respond to this post by saying "oooh, this is so booooring, James, give it a rest" (and I know they'll say that because I've heard little else for the last 24 hours). Stuart himself, while he was still engaging with me semi-politely, innocently protested that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about, because he wouldn't go ahead with the party if polling shows it won't get enough votes to win a significant number of seats. But the drumbeat of war emanating from both Wings the site and Wings the Twitter account is unmistakable, and I'll be honest with you - my very strong suspicion is that Stuart will at some point publish highly misleading Archie Stirling-style polling which will whip his supporters into an even greater frenzy and make the momentum towards a new party unstoppable. And then when the true picture of support for the party is revealed, it'll be far too late to halt the damage.
Incidentally, please note that if Stuart blocks me on Twitter (he may already have done that by now for all I know) I'll automatically go on his notorious "block-list" which he urges all his followers to use - something I can honestly say I never supported even when I was on good terms with him. So be aware that if you use the block list, you could well be blocking me without even realising it, along with the countless other good pro-indy people who Stuart has had random fallings-out with over the years. (The last time I checked, the likes of Kirsten Innes and Maurice Smith were on the list, which seems absolutely insane.)
* * *
And yes, before anyone says it, I know there are far more important things happening in politics this week of all weeks, and I'll be posting about some of those later tonight.
"And yes, before anyone says it, I know there are far more important things happening in politics this week of all weeks, and I'll be posting about some of those later tonight."
ReplyDeleteThis. 100%. And thank you.
I think he is. This is the thin end of the wedge - in the long run he could end up challenging the SNP even in first past the post elections.
ReplyDeleteRev Campbell needs to step back a bit from everything before he undoes all the good work for the indy cause.
ReplyDeleteWish he could seperate his personal views from his work concerning Scottish independence.
If he doesn't sort his ire out sharpish he's going to end up in serious bother from every corner.
I've been spending much time this week preparing for Hurricane Dorian, so perhaps I am out of the loop a bit. However, if the SNP don't fire the starting gun for an independence referendum at 23:01 on whatever day the UK leaves the EU, surely there is a strong case for a pro-independence party that is not the SNP to stand in the constituencies as well as the list?
ReplyDeleteIf such a party attracted significant support, it would almost guarantee a unionist majority. It's hard to think of a more effective way for the Yes movement to shoot itself in the foot.
ReplyDeleteI'm worried about all this. We all have different talents - Stuart's is as an analytical journalist. A politician - not so much. I'm not against the setting up of new parties per se as I don't want an SNP that takes the electorate for granted a la SLAB.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a new party needs a founder that lives in the country they are trying to get folk elected to. They need to have better people skills and not take the huff if you don't agree with them.
I share his fears about the SNP getting too cosy but he's not the man to lead a new party. As the BBC indy ref documentary said the man that does the forensic analysis of MSM very valuable, the guy on twitter not so much.
Aye but if (IF) the SNP don't do something about independence immediately after Brexit, what is the point of a voter who supports independence voting for them? Someone has to fill the void, although I am not convinced that Stuart Campbell is that person.
ReplyDeleteOne of you needs to rise above these destructive exchanges. It will be interesting to observe.
ReplyDeleteQuite honestly, I think I've remained pretty calm in the circumstances. He and many of his supporters respond to courteous dissent with abuse, and it's quite hard to keep your head when multiple people are screaming at you and calling you names.
DeleteFair enough. Both of you have done so much to promote Scottish independence. I sincerely hope that when the dust settles, you can both put your differences aside and focus on what's important.
DeleteOne thing that is extremely important is preventing a needless split in the pro-indy vote in 2021, which is why this dispute couldn't be and can't be avoided. It certainly needn't have become an abusive dispute, but that's something others will have to reflect on.
DeleteWings in now going of kilter, this is not the sort of behaviour or direction I donated money for.
ReplyDeleteI used to read Wings first thing every day. For a few months now, days can go by without even thinking if looking at it. It's a terrible shame what it's become because so many articles not forgetting the Wee Book were fantastic.
DeleteIt is now starting to sound like an anti SNP site, twitter account is getting worse also.
ReplyDeleteAlso his blogs are not what they used to be, all about him now, in a political party bent, so sad.
At this time, it appears more likely that Westminster elections will take place before Brexit. A Parliamentary majority seems intent on making sure there is an extension before an election is called. And while some EU leaders have balked at extensions, doing so for an election to occur when a possible outcome is the UK staying close to the EU in a single-market/customs-union would seem highly likely. Thus, UK elections first, then a new Brexit deadline of Jan 31, 2020, and possibly a very different Brexit.
ReplyDeleteI am one of those who advised Wings that no more donations from me. Probably increase to James instead.
ReplyDeleteA Wings Party ?? reminds me of Rise a few years ago. Reality is it takes years for a new Party to establish itself; it seems many Wings fans are carried away with the idea but what about the hundreds of thousands of voters who have never heard of Wings and never will; and going for the List vote - as James has often enough pointed out this shows a complete lack of understanding of how the d'Hondt voting system works.
Also dozens of Wings advocates are saying vote now to be sure we stay in the EU. Seems to be little understanding that we won't be independent on the evening of the referendum but there will be about 2 years of preparation and negotiation before formal day of actual Independence.
I am member of the SNP but have no insight into HQ thinking; however I refuse to believe that game planning has not been going on considering all possible - and these days unlikely - options. And you certainly don't give your opponents advance warning of your thinking for them to attack
A bit of a rant but I despair when I see all the calls for "bring it on now" and "forget section 30" etc. Have all these individuals game-planned the consequences better than the SNP leaders. Ah hae ma doots.
The Scottish government will not break the law.
DeleteWhat law is that then?
DeleteWe, the people of Scotland are sovereign. Confirmed by the declaration of Arbroath and the Claim of Right.
Our parliament has the legal right to run a referendum on any subject it wants, at any time, and for any reason.
We are not slaves of the english and their parliament. It is called the United KINGDOM for a reason. Kingdoms not countries.
Their is no way I am anti wings. I still go on the blog and will donate again if asked, also to James blog. I was just chipping in my view.
DeleteThere is a possibility that what started out as an off-the-cuff comment was seen to have some traction, it certainly increased the page-count, and is now becoming a serious wind-up best ignored. As has been pointed out numerous times, here and elsewhere, gaming the D’Hondt method is a mugs game. Unfortunately, people persist in thinking it can be done, but then some people think they can beat the bookies. As with an annoying toddler going ‘me, me, me’, put the headphones on and chill out. The toddler will get bored eventually and start fiddling with the remote control.
ReplyDeleteThe Greens gamed the system, the SSP gamed the system, The pensioner party gamed the system, Fat Margo gamed the system.
DeleteAll managed to elect representatives by targeting the List vote and ignoring the constituency part.
Facts are facts. The electoral system was rigged from the start and our JK knows it even though he won't admit it for reasons which he's to embarrassed to admit.
I wouldn't say Margo gamed the system at all, she simply stood on her policies, and she attracted enough support to be elected. I actually think you're making a fundamental misunderstanding here - "gaming the system" is not the Greens successfully conning voters into thinking the list vote is a second preference vote, and getting a couple of extra list seats as a result. Gaming the system successfully would actually be a vote-splitting campaign that managed to substantially increase the overall number of pro-indy MSPs. That certainly hasn't been done yet, and there's a good reason why.
DeleteI realise that you're now demented beyond all reason, but just for the record: categorically, unequivocally, 100%, without a shimmer of a shadow of a scrap of a doubt, any Wings party that I have anything to do with will NOT contest constituency seats at either Holyrood or Westminster.
ReplyDelete"I realise that you're now demented beyond all reason..."
ReplyDeleteI'm perfectly content to allow a comparison of our respective tweet histories to settle the matter of which of us is demented beyond reason.
Thank you for the reassurance about constituency seats, although how much that's worth in the long run is hard to say. You've done a 180 degree turn already - three years ago, trying to game the Holyrood system was a "mug's game", remember?
Im not seeing any signs at all that a "wings party" is going to happen, and even if it was to happen, I certainly can't imagine Wings himself standing. It seems to me a fairly transparent threat that can be used to push the SNP further towards independence. Its a good way to remind the SNP not to take independence supporters for granted, but I can't see it ever being a real thing.
ReplyDeleteI guess I just find it really confusing why you give it so much credence, and I do wish you wouldnt! I can't defend the abuse you've received though, good grief.
Wings followers (and I also donate to Wings and cheer him on), how about we target our abuse and invective at the yoons, not at our own?
I believe he was quoted as saying he would be a candidate, although he denies saying some of the things that were reported, so who knows what the truth of it all is. But if you think about it, any Wings party would either be led by him or he'd be the de facto leader. He'd want to keep a tight leash on policy, otherwise it wouldn't really be a Wings party at all.
DeleteAnd I can't agree that it's unlikely to go ahead, the mood music strongly suggests otherwise. But time will tell.
I guess we are picking out different tunes. To me it seems obvious that its a pressure tactic. When it comes down to it, before a hypothetical election (in 2 bastarding years), he'll tease a run, get the SNP leadership worried, and then put out an editorial saying that he's reluctantly been convinced to give the SNP one more chance. He'll then tell his followers that its important to vote SNP etc. This is assuming 2021 comes around. Seems fairly transparent to me, and fits with his MO, as well as his style.
ReplyDeleteHe's not a politician, he knows that (my opinion). What he is, is an excellent journalist and writer, and his analysis of Scottish politics has been spot on for years. That's another reason why there wouldnt be a wings party. There's no way he would lead, and no way he would give up control. He's too much of a lone wolf for that. So ultimately, he's using it as a tool against the SNP. Which is why, as I said, I do wish you'd turn your focus elsewhere, to stuff that is actually happening, or going to happen.
I disagree with your assumptions, as you know, so I certainly can't promise not to discuss this issue further - as I understand it, Gavin Barrie is planning to publish his modelling purporting to show that gaming the list system is viable, so that will need rebutting. However, my focus will remain on other things as well, as it has been all along.
Delete(Typo, should be "theres another reason why" )
ReplyDelete"All that a half-competent journalist will have to do to discredit the Wings party in the eyes of voters is to read through Stuart's colourful tweet history"
ReplyDeleteI know you acknowledge it later in the paragraph but I'm still seeing a lot of people here seemingly using a very old measuring stick for judging what makes a politician or political leader, saying Stuart Campbell most definitely can't be one. This sort of argument just doesn't hold up these days; look at Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. They're completely absurd and the last people you'd expect to become politicians never mind political leaders. Yet a certain subset of voters love them. Even trump understood this, as he said before he was elected "I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters". Anyone with a bit of charisma and energy about something (anything) has the potential to become a leading politician these days. So why not Stuart Campbell? He's already proven to be popular among a certain subset of voters, he appeared quite reasonable on Salmond's show. He may even attract more voters to the independence cause with his more abrasive (some may say entertaining) style and likely already has with his website and twitter antics.
"views held by Wings supporters (such as the desire for more urgency on independence, and gender critical views) need to be heard and fought for inside the SNP."
Nigel Farage has done a pretty good job so far of influencing national politics without being in the conservative party. The country is in crisis primarily due to the threat he posed to them after all. I'd be very surprised if strategists in the SNP aren't sitting up and taking notice of the potential threat a budding wings party could pose. If even the threat of a wings party gets the SNP to become more aware then Stuart Campbell's little thought exercise would be a success.
"Nigel Farage has done a pretty good job so far of influencing national politics"
DeleteThat may or may not be a good example. Nigel Farage may be about to destroy his own lifelong objective by splitting the Brexit vote in a general election.
He MAY, or he MAY not. But in 55 days he'll have managed to get the UKs hoofed out of Europe. That looks like achieving a lifetime ambition from here.
DeleteThe point I'm making is that if he does split the vote, Brexit will not happen on schedule and may even not happen at all. So he'll have destroyed his own lifetime ambition.
DeleteI almost feel like I should congratulate "Stjustconcepts" for posting one of the stupidest comments I've ever read, but he needn't have bothered. Deleted.
ReplyDeleteA Yougov poll of Scottish Tory held Westminster seats suggest that it look grim for them although I don't know the sample size in each seat.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1170079258699599873
You went full Leask! Never go full Leask!
ReplyDeleteI knew somebody would say that, but I'm actually making a different point from Leask. I'm not suggesting Stuart has Trumpian or "alt-Nat" policies - I'm simply referring to his abusive online persona.
DeleteIt hasn't been mentioned tonight, but the key to this whole "Wings Party" possibility is the question he poses in the polling he has promised. If he follows your advice, James, and asks the question you suggested (or similar), and the figures show he'll get 5%+ of the regional vote, then we will all have to swallow our personal dislike of Stuart as a person, and get behind him. If, on the other hand, he asks an "Archie Stirling"-style question, then we need to treat Stuart with exactly the same contempt with which he treated RISE and Solidarity in 2016, who tried the "let's game the D'Hondt system" stunt for party reasons, rather than to help Indy, because Stuart would be just as guilty of selfishness and ego as those guys.
ReplyDeleteWell done James, calm heads are needed now and I think Stu has lost his. Its such a shame as his analysis in the last couple of years has at times been razor sharp. If he had any real chance of launching a political career his online behaviour I think has scuppered that. I'm a disappointed too that the money that I donated to him has been squandered in this manner. Honestly I think its just all got on top of him and what he needs is a holiday (maybe he should have one to scotland and remind himself of what it is he is trying to do - and that its not all about him!)
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Wings Over Scotland has become so extreme that I may not generally even be able to recommend it which I have regularly done even though he has had me on his block list for years.
ReplyDeleteIn his current blog post he repeatedly calls Nicola Sturgeon a liar. I will admit that for political reason all politicians have moments of being economical with the truth, but his language I found shockingly extreme.
I do not *think* he intends damage to the independence movement, but he is very much in danger of doing damage anyway.
There is one thing we can thank Stuart for, this wee stushie has shown that us cybernats are not in a cult, we think we argue and disagree. I hope that level heads prevail as we need both James and Stuart, but I think James is in the right on his point about the list vote.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely.
DeleteIf all 50.5% Yes (on average) votes absolutely loved Stuart Campbell in a cult-like manner, havering soft no voters might well actually be put off independence.
If they've been visiting blogs talking about this spat in the past few days, they shall be much relieved to find Yes voters are all rather normal.
On the subject of 'abuse'...
ReplyDeletePeople need to visit Campbell's twitter/blog, and/or engage with him to read his reasonably regular profanities (which, let's be honest, are about as commonly used many average men). Ergo, it's not abuse. This is why he's not been charged with anything (even though some have tried). He is simply exercising free speech in his own way, and folk have to volunteer freely to read it.
Only if delivers profanities in your direction unsolicited (such as continuously emailing you, tweeting at you, posting letter through your door), then is it abuse.
So folks might disagree with him, may think his language and methods of delivery unpleasant, but his blog and twitter are not abusive (nor do they incite abuse that I've ever seen). If that were the case, twitter would be banning him while the cops would be round at his door.
This is not me standing up for either side - I think such spats are just stupid and folk should never get into them - but I'm a stickler for the finer points.
Also, unionist just love to abuse the term 'abuse'. If Campbell calls someone a c**t on is own twitter feed, much as the term is on the vulgar end of the spectrum (I'd only use it for hammer hitting finger type situations), it's not abuse. Only if he keeps sending people unsolicited e-mails where he calls them that is it abuse.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Is something I completely stand by.
As for Campbell having any effect on the indy campaign. He certainly won't negatively effect it. People don't vote 'coz Campbell' any more than the vote 'coz Salmond' in the personal actions sense. Although the political actions of these two may influence/have influenced things somewhat. People would not vote Yes because of the blue book or it's author, but because of what they read within it (or what it prompted them to read more about).
"Ergo, it's not abuse."
DeleteI'm sorry but that's plainly untrue, and that neatly takes me on to what is so disingenuous about what Stuart has been saying in recent days. He complains that I reported him and his friend for "swearing". I did no such thing. I reported him and his friend for abuse. If someone uses the C-word in isolation, then that is mere swearing. But if someone says to another individual "you are a c**t", then that is plainly, unambiguously, irrefutably abuse.
I'm not party to the offending conversation so I'm not able to judge. I was talking more generally (I don't have twitter for example, just follow some twitter pages on the web).
DeleteYou can swear at someone in an argument and it's not abuse. It's abuse when you persist in hurling insults even though they have tried to walk away / end the argument.
Generally, if someone has starting hurling insults, it means they have lost the argument.
Sounds like that's the case here.
But lets move on.