As a number of people feared, the latest Panelbase poll commissioned by Wings Over Scotland appears to be largely a propaganda exercise to further that site's recent anti-SNP agenda, and in particular Mr Campbell's tentative plans to set up a new political party in direct competition with the SNP. Only people planning to vote SNP on the Holyrood constituency ballot were interviewed. The idea seems to have been to identify a series of ways in which the SNP are regarded as deficient by their own voters, and then to present a magical 'solution' to these supposed 'problems'.
The results from the poll are being drip-fed to us, and the latest batch purport to show that SNP voters are confused by the party's strategy and aims in regards to Brexit. Actually the poll shows no such thing. It shows that SNP voters disagree with each other in their interpretations of what the strategy and aims are, but there's no evidence at all that individuals are unsure in their own minds. (To get that sort of evidence, there would have had to be a question along the lines of "On a scale of 0 to 10, how confident are you that you understand the SNP's goal in relation to Brexit?") Even the supposed division of opinion among SNP voters is somewhat artificial, because a clear majority of respondents (56%) said that they thought the aim was either to stop Brexit altogether for the whole UK, or to stop a No Deal Brexit for the whole UK. The difference between those two options is one of emphasis, because stopping No Deal probably requires stopping Brexit altogether, at least for the time being.
It's true that another 26% of the sample do hold an interpretation that contradicts the view of the majority, ie. they think the SNP want a Scotland-specific Brexit deal within the UK. But that's a product of the evolution of the SNP's own position - at one point Nicola Sturgeon was pressing for exactly such a deal, but having failed to get blood out of a stone she started taking the view that the only way (short of independence) to keep Scotland in the single market and/or the EU itself was to keep the whole of the UK in.
What I find really encouraging from the results is that only a very small 8% of the sample take the cynical view that the SNP are just "pretending" to try to stop Brexit as a way to win voters over to the independence cause. That's been one of the Scottish Tories' favourite smears ("the SNP are desperate for No Deal"), and it appears from the poll that it simply hasn't resonated with SNP voters. But what would be more helpful to know is whether it's resonated with the wider electorate.
Several Wings supporters have indignantly protested to me in recent weeks that Mr Campbell is extremely hard-headed, and would use his forthcoming polling as a genuine attempt to measure the likely support for a Wings party. If that support wasn't there, he would drop the whole idea to avoid splitting the list vote and possibly reducing the number of pro-independence MSPs. But what would a genuine attempt to measure support for a Wings party look like? It would have to be a question that presented Wings as one of a menu of options. Something along the lines of...
If the following parties stood on the Scottish Parliament regional list ballot, which one would you vote for?
Scottish National Party (SNP)
Labour
Conservatives
Liberal Democrats
Greens
Brexit Party
Wings Over Scotland
Change UK
UKIP
Scottish Socialist Party (SSP)
Solidarity
If the Wings party scored significant support on a question of that sort (assuming, of course, that it wasn't at the end of a leading 'question ladder'), Mr Campbell would be entitled to say that he's onto something.
What a legitimate question wouldn't do is ask about a Wings party in isolation, ie. "Would you consider giving your regional list vote to a Wings Over Scotland party?", because history shows that a question of that sort will give a wildly distorted impression of how well a party might do. The classic example was the YouGov poll that Archie Stirling commissioned when he set up his Scottish Voice party in 2007 - he managed to breathlessly persuade newspapers to report that polling showed his party was on course to take 20% of the vote and dozens of list seats. Just weeks later, Scottish Voice took a mere 0.3% of the list vote and naturally didn't come within light-years of winning any seats at all.
Similar dodgy polling questions earlier this year gave the bogus impression that the Independent Group/Change UK was on course for a massive breakthrough at Westminster.
So if Mr Campbell asks a credible polling question that presents Wings as one of a menu of options, it can reasonably be inferred that he is serious about accurately measuring support, and if he asks a vaguer question about the Wings party in isolation, it can reasonably be inferred that his motivation is somewhat different. And guess what? It looks like he's done the latter. An anonymous commenter on this blog was interviewed for the poll, and recalled that the question asked was along the lines of -
"Would you consider voting for a new alternative pro-independence party on the list ballot?"
Mr Campbell responded to the comment in his trademark derisive and foul-mouthed manner, but what he very noticeably didn't do was deny that he'd asked that sort of question. He isn't a fool - he knows exactly what he's doing. Even if at one point he was naive enough to believe that such a vague question would produce meaningful results, it's been pointed out to him for weeks why that isn't the case. I wrote a blogpost in mid-August setting out the problem with Archie Stirling-type questions, and Alex Birnie has repeated the point several times in comments on Wings itself. We know that Mr Campbell saw at least some of those comments, because he directly responded to them.
If, as it appears, he's gone ahead and asked that question anyway, it's safe to conclude that this is not an attempt to accurately measure potential Wings support on the list ballot. It's most likely an attempt to generate the impression of significant support, to whip his most devoted fans up into an even greater frenzy, and to make the momentum towards setting up the party unstoppable, regardless of the damage it might do to pro-independence representation in the Scottish Parliament. Remember that a small party that takes less than 5% of the list vote in any region will almost certainly not take a seat in that region, and can only do damage by taking votes away from larger pro-indy parties that do have a chance of winning list seats.
My advice to Wings readers, regardless of whether you're sympathetic to the idea of a new party or not, is this: demand better polling.
I agree with your comments.
ReplyDeleteTotally.
ReplyDeleteThe question "On a scale of 0 to 10, how confident are you that you understand the SNP's goal in relation to Brexit?" could be answered with a resounding 10 by around 90% of those respondents, but would tell us nothing about what they thought that goal was.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. The question asked *did* tell us something about what they thought the goal was, but *didn't* tell us anything about how confused they were about it - and unfortunately Mr Campbell is pretending that it did.
DeleteBut if 90% were very confident that the SNP's goal was something other than it actually is, those 90% actually *are* confused.
DeleteYou've missed the point being made, probably deliberately, but to state the blindingly obvious, its not a measure of the confusion levels of individual voters on an individual subjective basis but an inference made from the responses of the cohort as a coherent whole. As an analogy, if upon a fire evacuation the evacuee's assembled at four separate points when they were supposed to be at the same one you could infer the group was confused or did not know the evacuation strategy even if each one was certain of their course of action in their own mind, potentially because some received different information. Its an objective inference of the cohort as a whole based on the disparate responses given and indicates the clarity of communication from the SNP. Its not a subjective measure of each individual voter's thought process. The group as a whole is confused because they are not responding with the same answer. If they met up there could be some vigorous debate as to the SNP's strategy with each party confident in the assertions being made but you could infer they are confused as a group or do not know because they are not in agreement.
DeleteA teacher of a class that gives four different answers to the same question he posed (assuming there was one correct answer) could infer his class is confused or does not know the answer and he has not taught them with sufficient clarity.
Stuart Campbell used the phrase 'nobody has a clue' rather than they are confused, but probably somebody that responded is correct although its unlikely he mean't that literally. Also he used the phrase SNP voters really don't know what the SNP strategy is and as a body they don't, otherwise they would have given the same response. As a teacher would expect from his class if his class knew the answer. The differing responses suggest that voters as a body do not know what the SNP strategy is, even if they are all certain and some are correct. In practice as we all know, its also very rare to ask a question and receive a range of different responses without some confusion being present in the individuals' responding. In any case if somebody is 100% certain of a strategy but they are wrong or inaccurate they do not know what it is, and they can't all be right, as Mr Campbell suggests in his blogpost.
The alternate question posed above would produce a misleading spurious result with regard to knowledge of the SNP strategy unless Mr Campbell's question is posed initially as a mean score of 8.5 would indicate voters know what the strategy is but the different responses indicate they don't and they can't all be right. AS an additional question it could provide some extra information but it would not invalidate the inference from Mr Campbell's original question.
DeleteThank God SOMEONE who reads this site isn't a complete imbecile.
DeleteYes, thank heavens SOMEONE was prepared to be charitable to you beyond the call of reason. Leaving to one side tortuous analogies about fire evacuations and schoolteachers' questions, I'll respond to Niall's more realistic objection -
Delete"But if 90% were very confident that the SNP's goal was something other than it actually is, those 90% actually *are* confused."
We can quibble over semantics, but I'd say it would mean that they were wrong rather than confused. The reality is, though, that several of Mr Campbell's options were not really mutually exclusive, so many of them can be simultaneously 'correct'. He's trying to make out that there's some sort of Berlin Wall between the meaning of "stop Brexit for the whole UK" and "stop No Deal for the whole UK", but there isn't really enough clarity of language for him to credibly make that claim. If the wording had been something like "stop No Deal for the whole UK but NOT stop Brexit itself", that would have been a different matter.
I have a rather higher estimation of SNP voters' intelligence than you evidently do. For example, I definitely don't think they're so epically stupid as to think that "altogether" means "temporarily".
DeleteSilly reply. Even the most intelligent people can't be relied on to do close textual analysis of a polling question they're answering on the bus or over a takeaway pizza. If you chose not to use maximal clarity of language, I suspect it was because you wanted an outcome you could portray as "confused".
Delete(I'm also pretty confident that they understand the concept of opinion polls, and that therefore when they're presented with several options to choose between, those options are all intended to mean different things.)
DeleteYou know perfectly well that's not always the case. And regardless of whether in this particular case they were all "intended" to mean different things, the rather more salient point is that they DON'T all mean different things.
DeleteThey plainly do. You're desperately manufacturing a faux misunderstanding that you don't know the difference between Brexit and stopping Brexit. It's a bit embarrassing to watch.
DeletePanelbase had no concerns that the questions and options were ambiguous. I think people responding to the poll knew perfectly well what they were saying, because they're neither (a) idiots or (b) people who've completely lost all command of reason and turning into frothing obsessed lunatics ever since I suggested I might possibly form a list party. What percentage of your last month of posts have been ranting about me?
I'm sorry, but it's a plain fact that the "stop Brexit for the whole UK" and the "stop No Deal for the whole UK" options were not mutually exclusive as you actually worded them. And blaming Panelbase for not correcting the ambiguity in the questions you submitted and were willing to pay thousands of pounds to be asked? Puh-lease. That tactic is beneath even your dignity.
DeleteIf we're going to talk about embarrassing spectacles, I'd gently direct you to your own meltdown on the Wings thread yesterday when multiple people politely pointed out the lack of clarity in your question.
Oh, and on your last sentence, I do appreciate that you would have preferred it if I and others had piped down about the folly of the Wings party. But "ranting" (certainly of the personalised, foul-mouthed variety) is more your stock in trade. I've actually been addressing the issue - how about you?
Well said.
DeleteIt's worth noting that the question itself is absurd: it seems to take the premise "The SNP have/should have one clear outcome for Brexit as their view (and stick to going for it above anything else)".
DeleteGiven the party's actual policy, and the fluctuating things that are going on, i think it would be fair to say their view could be "The SNP want to ensure the best/least bad situation for Scotland".
(Add or remove points about "situation most conducive to a yes in an referendum" or "provide a record of solid governance for Scotland to increase trust in the next referendum", for taste, bear in mind that "do as much as possible to ensure there's not a crash so sharp it causes fear of independence, and to ensure that a border issue would be as easy as possible" comes under the first.)
That question and his insane portrayal of "most SNP voters think the SNP's doing what it should on Brexit" marks it as nothing more than a pure attack poll.
Asking questions of/about the SNP is not the same as being anti-SNP.
ReplyDeleteNot in and of itself, no. But in this particular case the questions were clearly motivated by an anti-SNP agenda.
DeleteIn recent weeks if it's WoS that's asking then it's pretty much anti-SNP.
DeleteThe Nat si agenda is a simple one. In the event it does happen will the Nat sis disband or just form another party of the right.
ReplyDeleteNobody is answering me. They'll disband then reband and call themselves the Nasti Natsi Party of Jockistan.
DeleteStill none of the nat si fashboys willing to give me a straight answer. Poncey pussyboys it's time to man up and tell what we all know is true.
DeleteEnglish pound falling sharply this morning, dragging the value of the Scots pound with it.
ReplyDeleteEnglish brexit voters couldn't give two shits about N. Ireland Boris. Dump it.
oh dear, your back to making up currencies again. There is no English pound or Scots pound there is Pound Sterling (GBP).
DeleteHere is a list of all the recognised currencies in the world with their ISO codes (including pegged currencies), hopefully this will stop you making the same mistake again.
https://www.xe.com/iso4217.php
If it is not the English Pound then why did the English claim sole ownership of said currency back in 2014? Are you admitting that the Yoons were lying?
DeleteIf Boris fucks up brexit and trashes the English economy simply for DUP votes English voters will never elect the Tories.
ReplyDeleteI have read twice over both WoS post and yours James. And I'm totally totally confused. Therein lies the problem for Joe voting Scottish public. So I'm going to stick to SNP 1&2.
ReplyDeleteI generally like Stu Campbell's style and follow his column, but I like to think I'm not a Rev Stu Fanboy. If he's offside, I'll know it. I have grave doubts about the wisdom of setting up a Wings party for precisely the reasons that you've outlined, James. I think it's very difficult, if not impossible, to game a PR system. If your cause doesn't have the votes, you're not going to gain power by slippery maneuvering, and right now, I think the desirability of independence has been accepted by around about half the population. You're on the cusp, but a push is needed.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's the problem as I see it. The push isn't coming from the SNP. Maybe they have some Baldrick-like cunning secret plan all polished up and ready to go, but if they do, I'm seeing no evidence of it and neither is anyone else. That's leaving the field open for Wings. The horses are champing at the bit, but the charioteer is holding them back. Does Nicola have a secret plan, or is the SNP frozen in the headlights?
Stuart Campbell is behaving like a spoilt child inventing silly question polls in order to reflect his prearranged stories of SNP bad these days *Do all dogs bite* or *Do dogs all bite* then cook up imaginary bitterness about why some answered one way and others another
ReplyDeleteWings over Scotland depends on reader cash to fund it so simply put, begin attracting disaffected or anti SNP people tell them the SNP are liars so fund me and my new party plus my court cases against whomever upsets me and I'll write crap that makes you all happy, and because I'm hoping to attract the dumbest people I can my website will continue and keep me in the manner to which I've become accustomed
Unfortunately for him some of the original Independence supporters are hanging on in there and making an Arse of him and he doen't like it demonstrated by the foul language and the threats of banning if they refuse to agree with him
It's just full on Farage populist tactics
If I remember correctly there was no mention of a separate party being set up by Wings during their most recent fundraising effort. Mention of a new party only came after the fundraising. I would have thought twice about contributing if I had known about the fundraising and i suspect many others would have too.
DeleteThe first mention of a Wings Party came, if I'm not mistaken, during his interview with Alex Salmond. But at that point it was just something Campbell mentioned as a possibility POST-independence. Somewhere along the line that seems to have morphed into a pre-indy party.
DeletePost-Salmond interview was also when I also began noticing what seemed like a significant upswing in Nicola Sturgeon critiques, for what it's worth.
''Wings over Scotland depends on reader cash to fund it.'' Money is the be-all to him so wonder with the U-turn that he's done, and the potential loss of supporters money, who's actually funding him now?
DeleteThere was no mention of his party when he was funding for the WBB. Let's see if he uses the next WBB to promote his party. If so many donators will be absolutely livid.
I made several comments on the Wings site yesterday, including one that outlined that question, but Mr Campbell deleted my comments, and all my comments are now being moderated before he allows them to be published.
ReplyDeleteStu Campbell is, IMO, "at it". I am convinced that he is determined to have his arse in a seat at Holyrood, which is a sad a thing for me, and (I'm sure) many others, because it's always hard when one of your heroes turns out to have feet of clay.
In the field of "keeping the MSM honest", nobody has done more, or has been as effective as Stu. He is - by far - the sharpest weapon against dishonest unionist journalists that the yes movement has, and they must hate his guts.
He has a huge ego, and is opinionated to the nth degree, which makes him a pain in the arse in a debating situation. His views on several subjects are obnoxious to many people, but there is apparently no room for doubt in Stu's skull. That causes no problems when he sticks to what he is good at, but he could cause damage to the prospects of an Indy majority in Holyrood, if he allows his ego to get the better of his undoubted intelligence and abilities. He is a journalist "par excellence", but I think he would be an unmitigated disaster as a politician.
Let's hope I've completely misjudged his motives, and that he produces an "honest" question as James says. If he DOES ask an honest question, and the figures even remotely resemble the fantasy that his mate's "illustration" suggested, then he's got MY vote, but I fear that Stu is going to be a big disappointment to us, and we are going to have to campaign loudly against his "ideas", in the way we did against the "ideas" of the Solidarity and RISE folk in 2016, when they tried to "piggyback" on the SNP's success.
Alex Birnie
He used to be "the sharpest weapon" the Yes movement has, but without a campaign to focus on he seems to have become rather aimless and unhelpful. His output used to be enormous, even long after the indy ref.
DeleteYet last month, he put out the least content he's put out since the site became serious back in 2012. And he's well on course for a new record low as far as annual output is concerned.
With all that's been going on recently, a handful of articles a month, and the odd article acknowledging there hasn't been anything put up in days must be a bit disappointing to his financial supporters.
If he really just wants to complain about trans people and the SNP leadership on Twitter all day, then he's perfectly free to do so. But his fundraising hauls will probably tail off if that's all he's got to offer in future.
It's pretty sad to think that many of his loyal supporters have no idea that he's deleting comments and banning people from the site who don't agree with him. He let's some dissenters through because if not it would be pretty obvious. If you follow the site you can see that there's a pattern to what's going on. In fact I could tell you who will be banned / disappear from the site next. I reckon that the change in his behaviour goes beyond his big ego and wanting a seat in Holyrood. As someone tweeted to him earlier ''has he taken the Queens shilling?''
DeleteHe's extraordinarily damaging to the Yes movement right now, and has been for quite a long time. It's almost like a cry for help. The thought of him campaigning publicly or appearing in parliament as an elected member is cringeworthy. Once very effective, something has gone very badly wrong.
DeleteSorry that should have said that I would have thought twice about the contribution I made to Wings if I had known about the plans for a new party.
ReplyDeleteStuart Campbell is now Tweeting and reTweeting anti SNP rants that agree with him as if it makes him right, it's all about money for this guy now, give him nothing
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately people have already donated £170,000 to his fundraiser earlier this year so he has the money although some it seems is going on his appeal
DeleteHello douglas. How's the cheese toastie business?
DeleteHe posted blogs to determine how much money he could screw out of people for a Dugdale appeal and then didn't even have the decency to announce that he had gone ahead and lodged the appeal. He's treating these people like mugs and they can't see it.
DeleteStu, you are rapidly turning into what you have been deriding in unionist journalists for the last few years.
ReplyDeleteApparently, (according to you) the First Minister has failed to persuade one third of SNP voters that a referendum will be held in the next eighteen months.
When it comes to you though, apparently you haven't failed to persuade 43% of SNP voters as to the merits of your suggestion. In YOUR case the goalposts change, and it's only 19% that YOU'VE failed to persuade.
Congratulations Stu, you are now officially the "Steven Daisley" of the yes movement.
I posted the above just now in Wings, but since I'm now "suspect", it is awaiting moderation. Any bets on it being deleted?
Alex Birnie
I've seen your posts on Wings and have seen nothing abusive or wrong in anything you've posted, Stuart Campbell is wrong and very wrong and I believe he knows it but I also believe his aim is financial survival so he'll appeal to that section of society who just enjoy being aggrieved at anything they're told and Mr Campbell hopes they'll pay him for the privilege
DeleteAs someone else posted earlier, it's all very Farage of him
The golden age begins.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49971853
UK productivity suffers worst drop in five years
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49961301
No-deal Brexit would push UK debt to 50-year high, says think tank
Hard brexit is inevitable now.. Tusk and Merkel are well and truly sick of the peroxide blonde fat dick..
ReplyDeleteIndependence, is also inevitable!
Thank feck!
Stuart Campbell's daft party is irrelevant... He's getting desperate because he knows his crowdfunding will dry up..
"Daft" really is the best word to describe it. Just a daft ego trip.
DeleteIt was disappointing in the comments on Wings that Stu affected not to understand how the wording of the stop brexit and stop a no-deal brexit options on the poll could easily have had overlap with respondents. It's correct that read correctly one is a brexit outcome and the other is a remain outcome, but I would not trust the responses to consistently be read correctly as they were worded.
ReplyDelete"...tentative plans to set up a political party in direct competition with the SNP." (My emphasis.)
ReplyDeleteMethinks you reveal more than you intend with this comment, James. It may well be a rather premature initiative as things stand, but the whole idea is that it supplements the SNP, not competes with it.
You have made a reasonable point that the constituency aspect is rather taken for granted in Stu Campbell's reckoning, but that issue is in principle addressable, not least if the SNP is riding high in popular support except in some well-known regions.
Hackles are well and truly up on both sides these days, but a blanket allergic reaction like this serves you (and us all) badly. You are better than this, James.
"It may well be a rather premature initiative as things stand, but the whole idea is that it supplements the SNP, not competes with it."
DeleteAnd there, ladies and gentlemen, is the whole outrageous con in a nutshell. You do not "supplement" or "complement" a party by putting up candidates in direct competition with it. Such a notion is utterly impossible (not to mention laughably absurd).
And I believe I recognise the "you're better than this James" schtick. I think you may well be the same anonymous commenter who directed a tirade of abuse at me two or three weeks back. If so, you are no longer welcome to comment here - as I've already told you.
There are only a half dozen genuine Independence supporters left on Wings now, the rest are following the disruption cause of Stuart Campbell
ReplyDeleteI just got back from the pub, and guess what? Stu Campbell has deleted my post. I wish there was some way I could have placed a bet on that with the bookies.....
ReplyDeletePoor Stu really has an agenda, and when folk point out that he is using the same tactics as the unionist media, he deletes their comments.
He has metamorphosed into the Yes campaign Stephen Daisley.
Alex Birnie
James Kelly should have put Campbell's posts into moderation and then deleted them. Give him a taste of his own dictatorial medicine.
DeleteYou should have to stand for 1st passed the post to be on the list vote.
ReplyDeleteHow would that help anything?
DeleteMmm. Few different thoughts here.
ReplyDelete1 - Demand better polling. Sure, all for that. But ultimately the person shelling out for it gets to ask the questions they want to ask. Leading questions are leading questions, if it turns out leading questions were indeed asked. But lets hang back and see first and then dissect the results. In the meantime, we are *actually* getting useful data here on things we probably should actually want to know about.
2 - Both WOS and SGP are now in a sort of negative feedback escalating spiral here which no one seems to come out well from. I get the impression Wings posts & work now get a somewhat extra unjustified level of criticism from SGP which seems partly driven purely by the poor state of relations between the two sites.
Stu manages to respond to the reasoned, sensible post up above by implying everyone else who posts here is a complete imbecile and still even manages to leave some doubt about how much of an imbecile he thinks the poster he's responded to is i.e. "not a complete imbecile". That doesn't entirely seem like the way to win friends and influence people. Particularly if you're hoping they might want to vote for you at some point.
3 - Sorry to take this circuitous route back to the original question (sort of) but DOES anyone understand the SNP strategy?
I mean I really was rather hoping it actually WAS "pretend to try to stop Brexit", because the alternative is that the SNP seem desperate to stop the thing that everyone else in the UK media is now largely openly saying will break up the Union, and it's hard to understand why they'd want that.
What is the SNP goal? Stop Brexit, save the UK from itself, tell everyone the thing that supposedly gave you the mandate for indyref2 is now not an issue, but let's have indyref2 anyway because the whole Brexit thing showed us how we need independence in the first place? Um, ok, that seems a convoluted way of doing things.
They should have said "Scotland was pretty clear in how we voted in the 2016 EU ref, we'd support an EU ref2 if the UK government or the UK Parliament voted on/supported it, but other than that we have had our say and we'll get back to you with our next steps once the dust has finally settled". Which I THOUGHT for a long time was the plan, and then they seemed to not be able to help themselves and just plowed in trying to fix everything whether it made sense for them or not.
Maybe not pretending to stop Brexit, but if they're not desperately actually trying to stop Brexit but secretly hoping they'll fail anyway then the strategy seems fairly incomprehensible to me. But I'm just an ordinary voter and the SNP seems to have given up trying to explain to their voters what they're trying to achieve.
1) "the person shelling out for it gets to ask the questions they want to ask" is a statement of the bleedin' obvious and is exactly why leading questions are such a problem in the polling industry. But if you do actually agree that Wings readers (especially those that have funded the poll) should demand better polling, then that's very welcome.
Delete2) If you had posted that bit of your comment in isolation I would have deleted it, because it boils down to another "shut up" comment, which contributes literally nothing to the discussion. I have shown considerable patience in the face of provocation from Mr Campbell and his devotees, and my posting history shows clearly that I was saying much the same things about this topic before they started calling me a "c**t" as I did afterwards. I have no intention of toning down my comments just in case people falsely accuse me of "extra unjustified level of criticism" in response to the abuse from Mr Campbell.
A more constructive comment would have explained what it is about the criticism that is actually unjustified, thus allowing me to explain why I disagree - but that would have meant addressing the issue rather than trying to shut the discussion down.
That's a fair response (well, I obviously don't agree with your final statement, I'm not trying to shut down discussion at all, but ok) and that is why I (usually) feel that one can disagree here with you publically but at least be respectfully heard, and I in turn can respect that.
DeleteMy posts have nothing to do with Stu - I make my own comments and generally consider them to be reasonable, but it seems in the ongoing WOS/SGP spat there's no room for that and it's "you're either with us or against us" on both sites on this particular issue.
Anyway. To talk at the substance of the post instead. I think you are conflating the disagree with/unsure of thing intentionally with semantics because you dislike the inference that people don't understand the SNP strategy. I don't think anyone needs polls to show evidence of people not understanding the SNP strategy - just a regular reading of comments posted on the usual major indy blogs. So I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion to draw from the results of that question as asked. I'm happy to agree to disagree on that point - there's no right or wrong answer here, just individual opinions.
"and it's "you're either with us or against us" on both sites"
DeleteThat is categorically untrue. When the abuse from Stuart started I went out of my way to say the complete opposite of that - ie. that I expected the overlap between the readership of the two sites to remain as considerable as it has always been.
Then you're not paying attention or you're yet another one of Wings sycophants sucking in every word he utters
DeleteLet's just be clear on something, the SNP cannot give a running commentary on everything they are doing because the press won't effing let them, we live in a country where our elected First Minister has to be invited to appear on Television and if recorded it becomes edited, if a statement is asked for it becomes rewritten,
The First Minister of Scotland doesn't want to use Twitter she's forced to use it because Scotland is not allowed a media of its own
Day after day the same people moaning about the SNP this the SNP that but give no thought whatsoever to the government of their country not being allowed access to media in the same way every other government in the world does
24 hours a day the media camp outside Downing street begging for a word, in Scotland Ruth Davidson can click her fingers and the media come running round her house to let her make SNP bad speeches, but people want to know and they want to know now, well maybe if Scotland had done the right thing in 2014 we wouldn't be in any of this shit and we'd have a media that served our country instead of the Bastirts down south, then folk wouild know stuff when it happened and accurately instead of BBC Scotland North Korea office or STV we're hedging our bets department because in a new Scotland we might not be granted a broadcasting licence so we'll stick with our England broacasting masters
"Let's just be clear on something, the SNP cannot give a running commentary on everything they are doing because the press won't effing let them"
DeleteI joined up as an SNP member post 2016 EU ref result and they consistently emailed me pretty much every other day with stuff relating to what was happening etc.
The emails dropped off a cliff post 2017 GE result, like they'd totally lost confidence in what they were saying even to their own members. It's never picked up since and the only real knowledge of the SNP strategy I have gleaned recently came from the excellent Wee Ginger Dugcast a few weeks ago when Philipa Whitford was on it and even at that she only could give her own opinions and not necessarily anything fully endorsed as "the plan".
That's kind of what I mean rather than necessarily what they say or don't say or can't say on the news or QT or whatever.
The 2017 election was utterly misread by everyone, including the SNP.
DeleteYes didn't change at all.
2015 was all about Scotland for Scots. Their votes were completely ignored by England though.
2017 was all about England and it's brexit. So the Turnout crashed in Scotland, notably for those who'd given up on the union.
If the SNP make the next GE all about indy (e.g. 'plan B' backup), they should do well. If they make it about brexit, they'll get a 2017 result again.
People don't see the point in Westminster elections if Scots MPs are not even allowed in cabinet / shadow cabinet and are treated like lepers. Scots need a reason to vote here. If the want to cancel brexit, then they can vote Lib Dem. After all, its an English election and that's what English remainers are doing....
I gave up on "Wings" a long time ago, in comparison to the length of time he has been "at it" .
ReplyDeleteFair and honestly put by James Kelly I hope he can open the eyes of those who seem to wear blinkers.
If you gave upon Wings then you must have been with HIM. MY Sympathy is with you. Do get a life.
DeleteI never gave upon Wings but I might give up on Wings.
DeleteGo fu#k yourself GWC.
ReplyDeleteHa, ha, ha. This is the man who wants to set up a political party. Time to take a good look at yourself.
ReplyDeleteWings Stuart Campbell is only riling up as many people against the SNP because he wants to invent a political party pretending he'll make the SNP do what he wants and trying to attract unhappy SNP voters to his cause, nothing no political party hasn't ever done before, how do you think the Greens got anywhere, they clung to the SNP coat tails by pretending to support them now they vote against them and repeal things like the OBFA
ReplyDeleteStuar Campbell is making an issue out of GRA hoping to attract women by telling them Nicola Sturgeon doesn't care about them and one or two activist types are helping him out with that by making a big noise about something that less than 2% of the population cares about and most of the population wouldn't know what a GRA or a WOKE was if it jumped up and bit them on the Arse
It's a non issue that Stuart Campbell is inflating for all he's worth because he's tring to sell his yet to be invented political party, that nobody in their right mind is ever going to vote for some sweary blogger on the internet for and I'd put money on the fact he already knows that
So why's he doing it? wait till he announces his next crowdfunder and ask him nicely and he'll tell you to Fuck off because that's what politicians do right, don't make me laugh