Monday, November 21, 2022

A love letter to Stuart of Somerset, who wants to be loved very badly

I was going to say that I simply had to write this reply to Stuart because it's a rare day on which a whole article is dedicated to me on Wings Over Scotland, but actually that would be a lie - it's not rare at all. This is the second time it's happened in just a few short days, and there have been so many other rants in the past.  Each and every one of them has a special place in my heart.  I cherish them all.

I said the other day that the Wings "comeback" was more predictable than a Home and Away plot twist.  Indeed, not only was it predictable, it was predicted - I and many others pointed out eighteen months ago that Mr Campbell's supposed "retirement" was just an emotional reaction to what he privately regarded as the humiliation of the 2021 Holyrood election outcome - he had honestly thought he had enough influence with voters to cause real harm to the SNP, but in the end he was confronted with the reality that his influence was negligible.  (Personally, I think he actually could have won a few more votes for Alba on the list if he'd spent the 2021 campaign creating a buzz about independence, rather than wasting any potential influence he had by wittering on endlessly about the gender identity issue for the whole month.)  

But he was always going to U-turn on his decision once he'd had long enough to lick his wounds, and it was just a question of the timing and the pretext.  He's been very noticeably preparing the ground for this moment for months - he gradually stepped up his posting rate until he reached the point in the first half of this month when he was posting almost daily (while ludicrously maintaining the pretence that the site was still "closed"), and he repeatedly posted the wildly unreliable SimilarWeb comparisons between traffic numbers for his site and other New Media sites so that he could say: "Look, nothing has filled the void left behind by Wings!  Of course I don't want to come back, I can't think of anything more ghastly, but frankly what choice do I have?"  (In reality, even if you took those numbers literally, they actually suggested that Wee Ginger Dug is well on its way to the kind of popularity Wings once had, so there was no 'void' to worry about.)

Maybe Stuart is naive enough to think people can't see through him, or maybe I've got just enough of a devious streak myself that I'm one of a minority who are capable of seeing through him, but either way it's always been blindingly obvious to me what this choreography was about.  To expect people to believe that the kind of major career decision he's unveiled over the last few days was not pre-planned and was just casually made on a whim is utterly fatuous.  Having blown his fortune on the disaster of the Dugdale court case a few years ago, he was always going to have to seek a fresh income, either via the Wings readership or by alternative means - and no, he hasn't just suddenly started thinking about that problem in the last 72 hours.

But if there was one thing even more predictable than his retirement U-turn, it was his inevitable announcement that he only did it because of little old me.  I'm not saying that because I'm Nostradamus, but simply because this is not my first rodeo.  A few years ago, Stuart was on the comments section of this blog late at night trying to taunt me that he was only doing such-and-such-a-thing he was plainly always planning to do because I had irritated him so much, and that I would have to live for the rest of my life with the knowledge that I was the unwitting cause of such-and-such-a-thing.  (The fact that I can't even remember what the thing was suggests that the taunt may not have had quite the hoped-for effect.)  Similarly, he always used to taunt the Better Nation gang that he had only taken up blogging in the first place because of them, which he apparently thought would be psychologically unbearable.  Retrospectively giving his villains-de-jour the credit for his own premeditated actions is an utterly familiar, bog standard part of the Wings repertoire, and by this stage it provokes little more than a stifled yawn.

One thing we do know, though, is that his devoted fans take everything he says completely literally, so they will now believe with absolute, unshakeable conviction that he only ran his latest fundraiser due to a fit of pique directed against me (and against Karen Adam, weirdly enough - I doubt if she'll be happy having to share the credit with someone she probably regards as a "transphobic bigot").  They'll also believe with an equally unshakeable conviction that he means what he says when he notes "that there’s little of worth to actually say about Scottish politics".  If I was them, the obvious question would be forming in my mind: "Stuart, did you just take at least £70,000 per year out of circulation for literally nothing?  Is there actually nothing of value you're planning to do with it?"  Because I can assure you that the Alba Party would have found good use for that sort of money - but now they won't have that opportunity, unless Stuart passes some of it on to them (spoiler alert: he won't).

He'll actually probably end up with more than £100,000 per year, which by any standards is several times more than enough to live on (even "in Bath" - one of his fans ludicrously said to me "that doesny go far in Bath, pal"), so we'll have to see whether the huge surplus is put to anything that could be remotely considered good use.  Will he do anything to actually promote independence, or will he spend all his time doing what he did yesterday - ie. joining in with the unionist propaganda campaign by the Mail and Express designed to undermine the campaign for independence by hoodwinking people into thinking that independence is less popular than it actually is?  Will he use the money on polling, and if he does, will he effectively squander it with infantile questions like his recent one about Kezia Dugdale, which served literally no purpose other than the furtherance of a bitter personal vendetta against the woman who defeated him in court?  For that matter, will he casually chuck the whole £100,000 into the black hole of yet another vanity court case?

Time will tell.  I'm not overly concerned because any attacks he makes on the independence campaign will be seen by a relatively limited number of people (the most up-to-date figures suggest that less than 1% of the Scottish population visit Wings at any time in an average month), and in any case it's not my money that risks being squandered.  But I do feel sorry for the people who have been taken in.  (Ironically, many of those people are currently fizzing with rage towards me, but I do genuinely feel sorry for them just the same.)  Rest assured that Scot Goes Pop's new Wings-Watch service will be on hand whenever necessary to fact-check Stuart's dodgy claims, especially about independence polling - and if the early signs are anything to go by, I'm going to be kept extremely busy.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue, donations are welcome HERE.

29 comments:

  1. Campbell comes across as f***ing deranged in that article about you. This is what happens. Challenge him in any way and his true colours come straight out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Looking forward to seeing how Wings Watch progresses! It's much needed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just wanted to say, James, that I admire the way you've kept going in the face of this onslaught from RevStu and his batallions. I know from experience that this kind of online bullying from someone who can call on hundreds of people to pile in against you can make it feel like the whole world is your enemy, but you've kept your sense of perspective about it and stuck to your principles. Not everyone would have been strong enough to do that. Look after yourself, but keep going.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gets the popcorn. Good on you for challenging him, I used to, but he got all huffy when I pointed out how stupid some of his trans points were, and some is his anti-SNP rhetoric. I've given up trying to post on his site, he won't approve anything now that he's been slighted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm genuinely interested to know which of his trans points were stupid.

      Delete
    2. Most of them to be honest. From deliberately misgendering people, writing an insulting article about a trans man. Insisting that medical examiners should be picked on their sex, rather than allowing someone to pick the gender (i.e. specifying cis woman) as a way of excluding trans women. Not realising that would logically allow trans men to do those procedures. Nearly all his arguments totally ignore the existence of trans men

      Delete
    3. What is misgendering? Is Eddie Izzard a man or a woman or a transwoman? See I believe he is a publicity seeking man who is a part time transwoman. Just trying to get a fix on your grasp of reality here.

      Delete
    4. "deliberately stating biological facts", "hurting feels by not following others' beliefs" etc.
      But yeah, let's see what you think Eddie Izzard actually is to measure whether it's worth trying to deal with any kind of reality when it comes to ineracting with you. I suspect it's not, but...

      Delete
    5. Mike Lothian - from your reply you seem to believe there's a difference between sex and gender, is that right?

      Delete
  5. Just ignore him. There is clearly a debate to be had over the SNPs gender policies, but droning on about it constantly on his site is boring, pander to a small clique and does nothing for indy. Keep up the good work James

    ReplyDelete
  6. Where does he attack the Indy movement?

    ReplyDelete
  7. James, good on you for responding to that lunatic post from Wings. He's used to walking all over people without reply.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good post Scot Goes Pop. More please

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have to agree with several other posters here. The latest post from Stu Campbell is disturbing, and suggestive of someone suffering from a mental illness and/or personality disorder. It's not a comfortable read at all. In all seriousness I wonder if someone who cares about him should convince him to step back from the public gaze while he seeks help for whatever the problem is.

    Kudos to James for responding in a restrained way and not rising to the very considerable bait. It must have been hard to resist but I don't think it would have helped.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree. The Rev's lost his nut. Tragic because he used to be good back in the day.

      Delete
    2. There's definitely something not quite right there. The Dugdale incident seems to have been what sent him over the edge. He had anger issues prior to that, but since Dugdale he's been completely unhinged.

      Delete
  10. Let me get this straight - Campbell is now saying he took £100,000 off his readers just to annoy two people and he doesn't actually have anything to contribute after all? Christ on a stick, if I was one of his duped donors I'd be fuming right now.

    Anyone fancy giving me one tenth of a million pounds for doing f- all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought you must be exaggerating there, but having just had a look at Campbell's post I'd agree that's a fair summary of what he's said. It's a genuine example of professional arrogance, meaning that he thinks he can treat his 'customers' like mugs, and then boast that he's treated them like mugs, and they'll still just accept it. Judging from the comments on his post he may even be getting away with it for now, but I guarantee you he'll over-reach himself eventually and come a cropper. I've seen this dynamic play out hundreds of times in the business world.

      Delete
  11. There is a cartoonist on that website who created a cartoon, I remember, which depicted a Trump voter as a "degenerate". I found this very disturbing, as I am a German resident and it uncomfortably reminded me of the stock examples shown in schools of how the Nazis went about demonising the Jews in caricatures. I do not think the cartoonist was deliberately following this policy, but it ticked the same boxes. The memory of that cartoon still haunts me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. James, I've always thought RevStu singles you out for this special treatment because he sees you as a long-term threat to his status and standing. It may seem a strange thing to say, but I think he finds you a trickier customer than most of the others. Hence he cranks up the hysteria to the maximum and tries to get Wings readers to savage you (and many of them do).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Did Stewart Campbell take the nutter pills yesterday? What an embarrassment he's become.

    ReplyDelete
  14. James, in relation to your post yesterday about the danger of Alba becoming the "Wings party" that never was with Campbell as its "spritual leader", that crystallised my own concerns about senior members of the party including elected representatives declaring their fealty to WOS. Like you I'm an Alba founder member, but I signed on the dotted line for an Alex Salmond led party. Campbell does not speak for me and never will. Not quite sure what the hell is going on at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Quoting (and agreeing with) another poster. "Just ignore him. There is clearly a debate to be had over the SNPs gender policies, but droning on about it constantly on his site is boring, pander to a small clique and does nothing for indy. Keep up the good work James." Can't think of better words to put it in.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ventured into the BTL comments on Wings for the first time in ages. Won't be doing that again for a few decades. One word: hellscape.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Stuart Campbell has become the enemy of independence. We need you, James, and others, to keep exposing him. We're behind you all the way.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The idiotic contradiction and moronic sophistry of Campbell's rationale knows no bounds other than the further humiliation of his dimwitted self. In his impotent flaccid rage, he attempts to demean you as : "an extremely minor blogger (the word “rival” would be to over-dignify them)" Yet he took the time to name you in the headline of his blog and put part of the blame on you for his return to regurgitating the same old drearily repetitive Wings styled hate fest. Consider yourself 'over-dignified'. I'm still laughing at how easy it is for you to get under his extremely thin skin. Keep up the good work but don't let him bother you too much. He's just a gammon aged incel snowflake with nothing else in his life of any worth or substance.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Good work. Keep it up. Ive been convinced he’s anti Indy now and will either come out as such or encourage some ‘vote with your conscience’ subtle shite to cover himself.

    I mean when did he last write a pro Indy article? And I’m not talking about complaining about SNP not being Indy enough. An actual pro Indy article. When was it? Sure it been years.

    ReplyDelete