Alert readers (ahem) of Wings Over Scotland may have noticed that in the vast majority of the countless blog/social media posts Stuart Campbell has used to rant about Scot Goes Pop over the last year, his main - and rather curious - complaint is that I am supposedly "dementedly obsessed" with him. It does beg the question of whether he genuinely thinks his audience is too thick to notice the colossal irony of that charge, because one thing I'm quite sure of is that he's not too thick to have noticed it himself. One of his stock tactics has been to demand answers to certain questions, and then when I do what he demands and provide the answers, he uses my reply as further evidence of my "demented obsession". On the most recent occasion he attempted that stunt, only a couple of weeks ago, I actually asked him for an assurance that if I gave him the reply he was angrily insisting upon, we could dispense with the increasingly tedious "demented obsession" repertoire, even if just this once. He gave that assurance. So I posted the reply he wanted, and as it happens I haven't blogged about him since (although needless to say I always reserve the right to blog about any subject at any time of my choosing).
But wait, what's this? Today brings word of the 34,289th post on Wings about the subject of the James Kelly "demented obsession", and it does read like someone who has lost his cool somewhat -
"the usual suspects stamping their feet and pouting about it yet again on social media, in particular the firmly-ensconced SNP MP Pete Wishart and the worryingly obsessed former poll-analysis website WINGS OVER SCOTLAND IS BAD AND TERRIBLE AND STUART CAMPBELL SOMETIMES DOES SWEARS SO NOBODY WOULD EVER VOTE FOR HIM! Goes Pop."
Blimey. Given that I haven't even been blogging about him, what could possibly have sent the poor Reverend into such a meltdown? As far as I can see, it appears to be a complaint about a mere two tweets I posted yesterday in relation to a newspaper report about him and his interminable on again-off again plans for a new Wings political party. Let me just gently reiterate a piece of advice I've given to Stuart in the past - if it really bothers you this much that people are commenting on you and your actions, you might not be ideally suited to a political career. Because if you do enter the political arena, you're going to regularly make the news (as you've just done), and people will comment on social media about those news stories. It really does go with the territory. If you can't even cope with two mildly critical tweets, it might be best that you reach that realisation now, because there'll be a lot, lot worse to come from people far more hostile than I am.
As for his belief that swearing is a national pastime in Scotland, and that anyone who doesn't think an abusive leader is an electoral asset must be living in the 18th Century, I can only repeat what I said in my reply two weeks ago. When Stuart imagines Scotland, he appears to imagine a pub full of working-class football supporters. That's not totally inaccurate, of course, but it's only part of Scotland, and it's not even the dominant part. A female friend spontaneously said to me afterwards "he's wrong, you know, extreme swearing would totally put me and a lot of other people off voting for a party like that". Personally, I've no doubt that's correct. Stuart disagrees, but if he puts it to the test he'll be in for a rude awakening.
"We’ve watched in bafflement as James Kelly in particular has interpreted this complete silence as a series of “U-turns” and “re-U-turns” so lengthy and contorted that we honestly have no idea what he even thinks our plans are now, despite the absolutely extraordinary amount of time he spends ranting about us."
Hmmm. What I've actually been doing, of course, is replying to his own crazy-paving utterances on his plans. Some of those utterances have been publicly posted in the comments section of this blog, so it's a bit pointless for him to pretend he's remained "silent" on the topic. But, hey, if you think your readership is that gullible, why wouldn't you try the Orwellian "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" line? I doubt it's any coincidence that Stuart's favourite book is Ninety Eighty-Four.
Honestly, Stu - I've got the memo. You're trying to pathologise criticism of your budding political career because you know that the criticism is well-founded and has the potential to hit home. But if pathologising my own critique as "dementedly obsessed" was ever going to work, wouldn't I have given up in embarrassment by now? Do I come across as someone who'll be deterred from pointing out the dangers of a Wings party to the independence cause any time soon? Maybe it's time to try a new tack. In fact, here's a radical thought - you could actually engage with the criticisms, and debate like a normal, mature politician. You might just need the practice...
If you were obsessed with that numpty you would be demented.
ReplyDeleteYou are already demented.
DeleteA gentle word for supporters of Wings commenting on this thread: please post sensibly and constructively, or I'll have no option but to temporarily switch on full moderation for all comments. I've already had to delete five comments in the first hour. Whatever anyone may think, I do have a life of my own, and I have no intention of spending the rest of the evening deleting the same troll comment fifteen times - which is exactly what happened on the thread two weeks ago. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteSo, will the Tories create 10% unemployment in Scotland or will they go for the cheaper option?
ReplyDeleteScots are waiting for the answer. Chose wisely unionists.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53564388
Closing furlough 'could lead to 10% unemployment'
..."Unemployment is going to rise to about 10% by the end of this year, before dropping back next year, and we think that an extension of the furlough scheme would have been a relatively inexpensive way to limit that rise in unemployment," he said.
He estimates that if the furlough scheme had been kept open, there would have been only 1.25 million using it by the end of the year, "hence it would be a bit cheaper to keep it going".
What would the Tartan Tories do without the Blue Tories. They are both capitalist right wing parties. There will be austerity and the loans will be paid back. So give us all your economic medicine for this crisis Skier.
DeleteFurlough / the economy is a reserved matter, as you so desperately desire.
DeleteIt's therefore up to you unionists to provide 'the medicine'.
Scots await your decisions on this.
You must have your medicine. Let the Unionists know.
DeleteWhy? You need your hand held or something?
DeleteYou campaigned to be responsible for covid and the economy back in 2014. You said our pro-indy ideas on this stuff were shite.
Everyone is now waiting for you to deliver.
With government comes responsibility.
If you don't deliver, you know what will happen.
#54%
The swearing on its own might not be off-putting, if it came with the right mix of joviality and warmth.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the Revered is as jovial as a cancer diagnosis, and as needlessly abrasive as a pair of cheese-grater breeks about your nethers.
Even without the profanity, he'd attract as much goodwill from the Scottish electorate as the bitter wee school bully who turns up at the high school reunion pretending to be best of pals.
When Johann Lamont said " Scots are not genetically programmed to make political decisions " she was talking about herself and the Revenant Stew, an besides, he's blocked me from commenting on his blog.
ReplyDeleteI've pointed out before that Johann Lamont is the Rosa Klebb of Scottish politics. I won't say anything personal about the Revenant except that it's now time to consider the adage “If you want to get ahead get a hat”.
DeleteCourteous greetings,
G.G.
Boris Johnson must've heaved £50quid of that £5million he handed out to Troll Scotland to Stuart Campbell
ReplyDeleteNone of this surprises me at all, look at his record, he's not a supporter of anything except trying to promote himself, how many times has he openly complained about the MSM not interviewing him or allowing him on the radio
Campbell's a cause nut, when he gets bored with one cause he starts another, this year alone there's been I hate Kezia Dugdale,I don't hate Brexit, followed by I hate GRA and now we're on to I hate Nicola Sturgeon because I can read her mind and it's bad, Oh and I hate the SNP as well
And to support his bid to be an MSP or party leader he claims that everybody in Scotland is a foul mouthed abusive big mouth like him
Yeah, that'll attract the voters for sure wee man
I think that's somewhat unfair, though your conclusion about his likely success as a politician (if he even wants that) is undeniable. (And not just because of the sweariness.)
ReplyDeleteIt's not about self-publicity, I do believe he genuinely feels strongly about the things he comments on. It's just that in his zeal for his own pet causes, he has lately lost all sense of proportion and apparently lost sight of the big picture. It's not that he's necessarily wrong about any given issue - that's a matter of opinion - it's simply that as a result he's needlessly and ingraciously burnt bridges with almost everyone else, and otherwise wreaked havoc on the Big Cause he claims to support. He's also getting inside information (from whom, one wonders?) which he doesn't care to share with the likes of you or I that has evidently totally soured his attitude to the SG/SNP leadership.
But the result is there for all to see. A proposition that might just have worked with a hefty dose of co-operation all round has already fissured into a non-starter, and that's without him even entering the fray, if that were ever his intention.
A website that has lost its way and whose once-diverse BTL is now (as Julia has previously observed) almost completely bereft of its former best contributors - only one or two sensible devotees grimly hanging on - and is instead largely populated by the seriously bitter-and-twisted, who themselves have clearly nothing constructive to offer. A congress of knaves and fools. (With due apologies to the few decent hold-outs.)
A great resource allowed to turn rancid, and all because of wounded pride and a withering of hope. To be a successful politician you have to be able to rally support; thoroughly alienating it just doesn't cut it, no matter how right you may be. So even on his own terms, he's now doing far worse than those he criticises the most.
Alastair Darling has resigned from the House of Lords...
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone do that?
Has he heard a bugle calling him to Arms to defend the precious Union.
You heard it here first.
The problem is that everything proves the point he's trying to make, and all words and sentences are interpreted to confirm it. Consider this from the previous article, off on a hobby horse:
ReplyDelete"It’s interesting to have it confirmed that COPFS and the Lord Advocate are answerable to the Scottish Parliament –"
Absolutely, they are answerable to the Scottish Parliament, in the same way the Electoral Commission was answerable to the Scottish Parliament for the conduct of the Independence Referendum of 2014. That's as per the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013, by the way.
"- and therefore primarily to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Humza Yousaf –"
Well, as the Cabinet Secretary Yousaf has a responsibility, but they report to the PARLIAMENT, not the GOVERNMENT.
"- because as alert readers might recall, in May this year we received a reply from Mr Yousaf to the effect that he and the rest of Parliament in fact held no power over COPFS or the Lord Advocate:"
Indeed that is correct, who on earth would want any Government - the executive - to actually have power over the COPFS or the Lord Advocate who has set responsibilities? But ...
"So immediately we have the Lord Advocate saying he’s answerable to Parliament, and the Parliament’s justice secretary saying he isn’t."
NO. That is NOT what the Justice Secretary said, he said he and the Parliament have no power over the Lord Advocate.
Campbell obviously doesn't understand the difference between power, and accountability. And for someone to apaprently want to be part of the legislature to have such a fundamental ignorance of the relationship of the pillars of a democracy, is quite disturbing.
The Electoral Commission, as I said at the start, was answerable to the Scottish Parliament. But who in their right mind would say that the Scottish Parliament had or has power over the Electoral Commission?
The wee mannie frae Bath hasn't decided yet, whether or not he is going to start a "Wings" party. Okaydokey.....
ReplyDeleteIn his blog of 2015 - "AMS for lazy people", he explains in great detail the pitfalls of trying to game the AMS by starting a new wee party, and concludes that trying such a ploy is a "mug's game", and that chances are it will "make a chump out of you".
Apparently, things have changed. Stu doesn't like the SNP anymore, but, apart from that, I'm not entirely sure what else has changed. Folk are still most likely to give both their votes to the SNP, and the dangers inherent in the area of "10% of the SNP vote" splitting are still there.
The unionists need five more seats to have Jackson Carlaw parking his arse in the FM's seat. In the "danger area", it still takes tiny amounts of votes to cause unionists taking seats instead of pro-indy folk. The mathematics haven't changed. The psychology of voters hasn't changed.
Wings could clarify the situation tomorrow. If the wee mannie frae Bath were to run a proper poll of SNP voters, asking a "non-Archie Stirling" type question, then we would know exactly how many SNP voters are likely to switch. It would have to be a proper poll, though, not like the Mickey Mouse joke that Stu ran last year, with joke questions.
If such a poll were to indicate that 25% of SNP voters would vote for Wings or Alliance, then I'm in. The danger zone would be all but eliminated, and I'd be happy to abandon my "safety first - belt and braces" approach.
But Stu will never do that, because he knows in his heart that there isn't a chance in hell of 25% of SNP voters switching in the list. If he ran such a poll, and it showed that only a minuscule amount were going to switch, he'd have to admit that he was wrong. Stu doesn't "do" admitting to errors......