I'm well used to being trolled, but as IFS pointed out, some of the trolling that followed my article the other night seemed particularly extreme and almost had a coordinated feel to it.
I've felt for a while that people seem to have a faulty translator chip installed that goes particularly haywire whenever Kate Forbes speaks. She can say something totally innocuous about tidal power or pensioner poverty, but somehow people hear it as "I love conversion therapy" or "the Earth is 6000 years old". The trolling I received gave me a little taste of a similar phenomenon, because all of it was based on the completely bogus premise that my article was some sort of attack on the SNP or was a form of 'anti-SNP spinning'.
There's a basic failure of intelligence or at least of attention here. Anyone who has followed this blog knows, or certainly ought to know, that I believe the future of the independence movement hinges on the SNP being successful in this election, and I've therefore been looking for any possible sign of hope. The article reflects that and identifies John Swinney's positive approval ratings as the most optimistic indicator. But it would have been dishonest and ridiculous of me to have totally ignored the elephant in the room, ie. that the calling of the election has coincided in a really unfortunate way with two polls showing the SNP in their worst position for a decade.
Similarly, because the article mentioned Alba, all the trolls seem to hear is "glorious Alba heading for historic triumph!", which bears no resemblance whatever to what I actually said. One troll even left a comment on this blog that said "James, your article is ridiculous, Alba will win no seats at all", which might have been a fabulous point if it actually contradicted the text of the article in any way. In reality, the article was decidedly downbeat about Alba's chances. I said that by standing in so many seats they were following a "curious" strategy that risked stretching their resources too thin, and that could result in them recording a very low vote in each seat.
Another troll, using delightful language, claimed: "James Kelly...is so far up Salmond's a*** he can see the Rev. Stu". Yeah, has anyone actually noticed me being particularly sycophantic towards the Alba leadership recently? As opposed to, y'know, repeatedly pointing out how concerned I am that they're moving in the wrong direction? That they were unwise to vote to bring down the SNP government, that their intervention in the general election is too extensive and risks doing harm, that they've become too authoritarian and too intolerant of party members' right to speak freely, etc, etc?
Incidentally, when I was asked to write the article, I was specifically asked to discuss how the SNP, the Greens and Alba were placed in the polls as the campaign got underway. So if I hadn't mentioned Alba at all, I wouldn't have been sticking to the brief. But the trolls seem to be triggered simply by any mention of the word "Alba" itself.
Lastly, yet another troll furiously claimed that "equating Liz Truss and Humza Yousef (sic) as comparable unpopular leaders is absolutely barking". That's reminiscent of just about every politician in the US complaining about the ICC "equating Israel with Hamas", because in fact I did not equate Yousaf with Truss. I simply used Truss as an example of how the popularity of a party can be negatively impacted by a leader who has already gone. But the fact that the trolls are so triggered by that point suggests they're in denial about just how far Yousaf fell in the public's estimation. In the YouGov poll, his net approval rating stands at minus 40. That's worse than Douglas Ross, is comparable with the extremely poor ratings for Alex Salmond that are always cited, and is not a million miles away from Truss-like numbers. There is not a shred of doubt that the public have decisively concluded that Yousaf's leadership was a failure. It's not in any way an anti-SNP statement to point that out, because Yousaf is the SNP's former leader not their current one, and I think they're in a much better place under Swinney/Forbes.
No need for the (sic) because Yousef/Yusef or Yousaf/Yusaf or Yousuf/Yusuf are translireations not misspellings.
ReplyDeleteMy own surname is ultimately an inexact Anglicisation of the Irish language "'O'Ceallaigh", but I would still correct anyone who called me "Kelley".
DeleteKelly and Ó Ceallaigh are both written using the same alphabet. There are many ways to transliterated the former FM's name.
DeleteThere are also many ways of anglicising O'Ceallaigh - the fact that it's the same alphabet is literally irrelevant to that point.
DeleteNot if you're wearing a hat.
Delete..transliteration..
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, and I don't think the trolls will think it's worth much, your article is 100% representative of your stated views. You quite clearly highlight the impossibly irrational and downright misrepresentation that goes on with the trolls. As if you would share any platform with Campbell never mind up Salmond's arse. The trolls are pretty ignorant of the true situation or they deliberately misrepresent for their own agenda.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I have yet to see any evidence that Forbes wants or would deliver independence I have always felt she would make a better FM than Yousaf or Swinney in terms of delivering competence, better policies and a fairer Scotland. Her key pitch early in the leadership hustings was eradicating poverty. Yousaf subsequently jumped on this bandwagon. Can't think of anything he did to alleviate poverty during his year as FM but happy to hear differently if he did do something. I also do not think Forbes would go anywhere near any of the controversial stuff. On the negative side I never associated Forbes with any of the wrongdoings of Sturgeon's gang but she has now hitched herself to that wagon and time will tell if she keeps herself untainted or if it is just a convenient political move. If Forbes helps to prop up a Swinney FM for longer than it would exist without her she will not assist independence. It may help her get the FM job but I want independence not politicians feathering their own nest.
I use to think the SNP could be saved, like James still does, but I gave that up when the membership voted for Yousaf. It has only been reinforced by the appointment of John REDACTOR MAN Swinney as FM. Honest John he ain't and boasting about how popular he is will come back to haunt him. Despite all that has happened Sturgeon's gang still has an iron grip on the SNP and that is depressing if you want Scottish independence any time soon.
Spoiler alert Swinney has always been what he called a gradualist and will happily retire with his FM pension and Scotland still England's colony.
A gradualist is a Unionist.
I don't agree with James but there is absolutely no doubt that he has consistently tried to support and give genuine advice to the SNP to make it more successful. His reward - his advice is spurned and manic trolls on his case. Slavish loyalty to Sturgeon's gang is the only position acceptable to the trolls.
IfS: Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
DeleteWhile as an SNP supporter I understand the desire for quicker action towards Scottish independence, the SNP's gradualist approach is a pragmatic strategy.
As a governing party, the SNP has a responsibility to address a wide range of issues that affect the daily lives of Scots, such as healthcare, education, and the economy.
By balancing the push for independence with these important responsibilities, we aim to build a stronger foundation for a future independent Scotland.
Sudden or rash decisions could risk destabilising the progress we have made. This careful, step-by-step approach ensures that when the time comes for a referendum, we are fully prepared and have the support and stability needed to succeed.
In the meantime, we continue to work tirelessly on other key priorities that improve the quality of life for everyone in Scotland. Our commitment to independence remains steadfast, but as a responsible government, we must also deliver on the everyday needs and aspirations of ordinary people.
Anon at 8.50am - thank you very much for your gradualist gaslighting pish. If the SNPs intention always was a very long slow grind to independence then the promises of Indyref2 over the last 7 years and raising funds on the back of such promises means the SNP are a fraud and operated a money making scam. Analyse that Murray Foote robot.
DeleteIndependence for Scotland May 25, 2024 at 1:32 AM
DeleteHave you considered that the reason you have all this bitching and infighting is because of two factors.
1) You don't have a clue how to get independence because its in the hands of Westminster and really you are just fighting like cats in a sack because at the bottom of you all, you all know that and have no way round it.
2) Remove independence and it just exposes the massive differences in positions on all sorts of things and remove independence as a unifying force and they fight like cats in a sack over everything else.
Fundamentally, you don't have a route to what you are united on, so basically you are fighting each other because you can't achieve that.
There, solved it for you
Seriously, anon8:50, what is the point of submitting screeds of AI written propaganda to the site? If you genuinely feel you have something worth saying, pay others the courtesy of doing it in your own words or don't contribute anything at all.
DeleteJerry, you just keep on demonstrating you ain't the clearest of thinkers. Labour and the Tories both Britnats, like you, knock lumps out of each other all the time.
DeleteThe only problem we have is that Britnats like you have infiltrated the SNP. No doubt you are proud of this. Just like you are proud of holding nations in a colonial grip. You ain't a decent person.
Colonialism is a scourge and great evil throughout the world and England was its gold medal winner. It still hands out gongs glorifying the British Empire. An Empire that led the way in murdering, raping and stealing resources throughout the world.
If you had any decency you would be ashamed. But no you come on here boasting that Westminster controls the basic human rights of Scots called self determination. Have a long look at yourself in a mirror and ask yourself is this the best I can be.
Owen - spot on. I detest these robots impersonating humans even more than the trolls.
DeleteIndependence for Scotland May 25, 2024 at 11:14 AM.
DeleteI'm British, a member of the UK and British Isles, not a Britnat, whatever that is.
And i am the clearest of thinkers because I spelt it out for you, there is no route to independence other than through Westminster and no one likely to be in westminster will give it to you, so you are up a cul-de-sac with nowhere to go, and that's what causing all your infighting because at the bottom of you, you know that's right.
And on NO ISSUE is any government going to keep authorising every 5 mins to suit your latest grievance, and you seem remarkably undemocratic given that when we do have referendums YOU DON'T ACCEPT THE RESULTS.
Now no vote on anything is forever, and as Salmond and Sturgeon said, its a "once in a lifetime vote" and they are holding you to your leaders words.
Like Brexit we had to wait 41 years, I suggest that you get used to doing at least 25 years porridge, probably more
@Jerry, I'm curious about your thoughts on this point.
DeleteThe only definition in UK legislation for a 'political generation' on a constitutional matter is 7 years as laid out in the Good Friday Agreement.
In theory Northern Ireland could have a referendum on reunification with the Republic (thus leaving the UK in the process) every 7 years if they wanted to. That was considered a reasonable length of time to leave between votes on constitutional change on these Isles.
If that's a reasonable amount of time between referendums in Northern Ireland why isn't it a reasonable amount of time between referendums in Scotland?
If anything considering the violent past surrounding the issue in Ireland the gap between referendums there should be longer than Scotland, not shorter.
Jerry, you are full of ignorance - most of it probably gleamed from reading the Daily Express.
DeleteLie - Salmond and Sturgeon did not say it's a lifetime vote.
Aye you are a Britnat alright and a Britnat fascist at that.
Ha ha Jerry the fascists Captains log supplement post has done a runner.
DeleteScott May 25, 2024 at 1:26 PM.
DeleteNot aware of the details of the GFA with regards referendums so if you can post verbatim I'd be grateful.
What i do know is that its controlled from Westminster and must be initiated by Westminster, and its more complex than that, because it also requires a referendum in Ireland to accept reunification, and then its still not a done deal because there would have to be reunification negotiations on a wide range of issues and then possibly another referendum on that agreement before implementation.
If there is a 7 year clause that's a MINIMUM and not a mandated frequency and it would be controlled from westminster and likely the same would apply in reality that it would be at least a "once in a generation" vote if not a once in a lifetime vote there as well.
As I've said on here before you'd be far better off actually sitting down to negotiate a divorce agreement from the UK BEFORE another Scottish referendum AND negotiate accession terms and timescales with the EU before hand as well.
Then you could put the reality of what it means to the Scottish people and I think many at Westminster might be prepared to back another referendum on that basis.
That to me is likely the quickest route to another vote rather than putting fantasy to the people and having it rejected because you haven't done the homework.
Independence for Scotland May 25, 2024 at 1:27 PM
DeleteAm I full of ignorance?
From the ferret
However, senior SNP figures, including then First Minister Alex Salmond, said that the referendum would be a “once in a generation opportunity” for Scotland.
The Scottish Government’s 2013 white paper, Scotland’s Future, which made the case for Scottish independence, also defined the referendum as a “once in a generation opportunity”.
The Scottish Government’s response was: “The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.
“It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.”
https://theferret.scot/sturgeon-2014-independence-referendum-generation/
Who's full of ignorance now?
PS the Ferret fact check also contains the statement
DeleteBefore the 2014 vote, Nicola Sturgeon herself repeatedly called the referendum a “once in a lifetime” or “once in a generation” opportunity, such as in an interview with the BBC’s Daily Politics, where she said: “The SNP have always said that in our view these kind of referendums are ‘once in a generation’ events.”
So I'm afraid you are just factually wrong there were multiple occasions when Sturgeon and Salmond said that it was either a "once in a generation" or "once in a lifetime" vote.
Who's the ignorant one now??
I have a clear policy of not engaging with Fascists and this is the first time I have had to take this approach on SGP. Even when they lie and misrepresent like Jerry the Britnat fascist.
DeleteApologies I was slightly mistaken on my source. It's the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that implemented the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement that mentions it. Not the GFA itself.
Delete**Paragraph 3**: "If a poll held under this Schedule results in a majority of those voting expressing a wish that Northern Ireland should not cease to be part of the United Kingdom, a further poll shall not be held under this Schedule earlier than seven years after the date of the previous poll."
Onto your next point.
"As I've said on here before you'd be far better off actually sitting down to negotiate a divorce agreement from the UK BEFORE another Scottish referendum"
In your opinion would need to happen for the UK Government to enter into those kinds of negotiations though? What motivation would they have to entertain the idea of a divorce agreement before it's determined that a majority of Scots actually want independence?
If I was the UK Prime Minister I would actually find it amusing if the SNP came to be and asked to negotiate an agreement on Scotland leaving the United Kingdom before a vote takes place. What would they have to gain from it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIndependence for Scotland May 25, 2024 at 2:46 PM
DeleteBlessingtons! I'm a fascist am I? just because i point out facts and ask you tough questions you can't answer.
When you have to resort to cheap unsubstantiated insults in place of reasoned argument, its because you know you are trying to create a smokescreen because you don't have any answers do you?
Probably explains why you have such a failure convincing Scotland to vote for independence, because your only argument seems to be that if someone doesn't agree with you, you can't debate the issues and that explains why you'll never get independence.
Trolls will be trolls.
ReplyDeleteBeing commissioned to write articles for others is more telling that you're doing a good job in treading through the minefield of Scottish politics.
Don't you mean North Britain?
DeleteWith trolls it's just the old power without responsibility thing. To hell with them James - you do a good job in difficult circumstances.
ReplyDeleteHi James,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to reach out and offer some reassurance. It's disheartening to see trolls attacking you without truly engaging with your arguments. Your insights on Scot Goes Pop are thoughtful and valuable, and many of us appreciate the depth of your analysis.
Remember, trolls often aim to provoke rather than engage in meaningful discussion. Their attacks say more about them than your work. Focus on the positive feedback and the constructive discussions your blog generates. Your voice is important, and the majority of your readers understand and value your contributions. Keep up the great work, and don't let the negativity of a few drown out the support of many.
Well said anon at 8.53am.
DeleteThese people haven't read the articles, you could have said anything in them and the posts would be the same.
ReplyDeleteAbhainn
Aye. They're like that here when they swoop on in, too. Especially that delightful fella with the bedside manner Dr. Jim
DeleteI am sorry you have to put up with them. By the sounds of it, those are tribalist trolls. Doesn't matter what you say or how legitimate it is. They seem to only skim-read through stuff and then, if they see anything that goes on their "do not allow" list, they'll just start "barking" (dogs don't deserve to be degraded by being associated with these "people"). It would be laughable, if it wasn't so pathetic of them. Engaging with them is pointless and could only encourage them to do worse still. Banning or blocking them is the only solution for such bullies.
ReplyDeleteExactly this.
DeleteYou left for Alba, that makes you Satan, you are hereby cancelled and should die in a ditch, alongside the only politician who ever led us to the brink of independence: Alex Salmond.
This tribal stuff is ancient and self destructive. Trouble is they cannae see it looking back at them in the mirror, so on it goes, rendering every one of them useless to the cause of independence.
Chin up. The cataclysmic humping they'll take on July 4th will drive them to despair. Maybe even—fingers crossed—silence for a few.
ReplyDeleteSo chin up— you wish the britnat parties to win over the SNP. That does not help independence one iota. Still some of us will still fight.
ReplyDeleteYou can take the bruising, anon. I’m not lifting a finger for this state of a party. They’re a roadblock as they are. They must learn the error of their ways, and that means facing consequences: in this case their earned defeat.
DeleteBesides, those labour MPs will be better campaigners for independence than Blackford ever was. They’ll treat Scotland with contempt and burst the last remaining hopes unionists have in their precious cage of a union.
Same goes for me. Nobody is doing more to prop up the status quo than the crowd of gravy slurpers who make up today's SNP. A pox on them!!!😁
DeleteWhat is the difference between Paula Vennells gang and Nicola Sturgeon's gang.
ReplyDeleteVennells and her gang deliberately and knowingly persecuted and prosecuted approx 900 innocent people.
Sturgeon and her gang deliberately and knowingly persecuted and prosecuted just one innocent person.
Both did it for similar reasons. Both used their positions of power and funds in a totally unacceptable way. Malfeasance. Members of both gangs should be prosecuted.
More lies. Your fixation with Nicola Sturgeon is a bit creepy. Go out and meet new friends.
DeleteAnon - stop hiding in the anons like the cowardly troll you are. It is the truth - you don't like it because you are a blind nicophant.
DeleteFrom other places - the definition of irony is spelling decolonisation with a zed or "zee" as the author would probably say - "decolonization".
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, the Americans were the very first to break the chains of the British Empire and declare and win independence. Their spelling is perfectly valid.
DeleteThere's also the issue of regardless of whether or not you believe the SNP are actually making moves towards independence or if their General Election strategy is bonkers and we'd still be in exactly the same position if they somehow win all 57 seats... there's a big competence problem.
ReplyDeleteThere used to be two groups who would vote SNP: Those who would always vote for them "for indy" and those who would vote for them because they were competent and seen as a better option than all of the other parties.
Leaving aside the constitution for a moment, it's incredibly difficult to argue that we've had a competent Scottish Government for the past year. It's been almost never-ending scandals, police investigations, money jizzed away on policies that never came to fruition, and for some reason an extensive focus on gender issues which, let's face it, is on no one's top ten list of the most important issues facing the country.
Even the SNP's campaign launch for the General Election has been overshadowed by the Michael Matheson affair. For some daft reason John Swinney has put his full support behind him and has criticised Holyrood’s standards committee recommending sanctions.
That's literally shooting yourself in the foot as it keeps the saga going, and one thing the public hates more than anything else: Politicians stealing public money without consequence and their leaders supporting them (not exactly a good thing to keep fresh in people's minds going into an election)... and before anyone points out that the Tories have done worse, that might be one of the reasons why they're headed towards a historic electoral defeat as well.
John Swinney demonstrates commendable leadership by standing up for Michael Matheson, highlighting potential biases in the investigation process.
DeleteHis commitment to fairness and parliamentary integrity, even amid political controversy, showcases his dedication to justice and loyalty to colleagues, reinforcing the principles of due process and equity.
I take it you are typing AI nonsense? Mathieson should have dealt with this and paid the bill from his own funds the minute he became aware of what happened. He behaved like a unionist and gave the unionists and MSM and BBC more ammo than they could ever have dreamt of.
DeletePut yourself in the position of an average Joe in the electorate. This is seen as John Swimming putting his full support behind someone who stole £11,000 from the public purse & he doesn't want his colleague to face consequences for it.
DeleteMore AI claptrap. Give it a rest ffs!
DeleteNot you, Scott! 😁
DeleteThe f*****g robot at 11.43am. "His commitment to fairness and parliamentary integrity" was nowhere to be seen during the Parliamentary Inquiry in to Sturgeon's actions. Swinney hid documents and redacted the hell out of others he was eventually forced to publish. Integrity and Sturgeon's gang are strangers.
DeleteIt is probably worth pointing out, in all of this, that Douglas Ross has every incentive to use Mathieson as a means for political point scoring. This tactic could undermine the fairness and integrity of the parliamentary process which John Swinney has spent a lifetime upholding. It’s crucial that any investigation maintains impartiality to ensure trust and credibility in our political institutions. It’s important to consider these aspects -- as John Swinney has rightly done -- in order to avoid falling into a trap laid by the Conservatives that serves partisan interests.
DeleteThe AI posts seem to have increased significantly since the election was announced. Like the trolls, they offer nothing but endless waffle to render the comments section almost unreadable.
DeletePoliticians Campaigning
ReplyDeleteKate Forbes says voters want to se a vision for hope and change. Nope I want to see Scottish independence. As Starmer said what is the point of the SNP sending a message to Westminster - they don't listen - unless it is bye bye of course.
Sunak campaigning in N Ireland - what's the point the Tories don't stand candidates there. Sunak looking like a scared wee boy on a small boat. I guess he is used to being on massive luxury yachts.
From a Scottish point of view an election to Westminster is a farce. You either send MPs there who get ignored or you send MPs there who assist the colonial Westminster government to subjugate Scotland.
Kate Forbes was right the first time "continuity won't cut it".
DeleteBut that's exactly what we've ended up with: Continuity. People are fed up because they feel like nothing is going to change so what's the point?
The only way to advance the cause of Scottish independence in this election is - as James has clearly indicated - through a vote for the SNP. If you don't like the direction of the SNP then get involved through changing it by internal means. Your nihilistic approach will never change anything.
DeleteScott: Anon 12.34 offers very sound arguments. I agree with him fully.
DeleteAn attempt at internal reform was tried a couple of years ago with the 'good guys' campaign. If you remember, the party hierarchy simply reinstalled those the membership had rejected and nothing changed.
DeleteThis.
DeleteIf it was possible to reform the SNP from within it would have already been done by now. Alba, ISP etc probably wouldn't have even formed in the first place as most of us who ended up in those Parties would still be SNP members.
Anon at 12.49pm is correct. Angus Robertson changed the SNP constitution to give complete power to the SNP NEC so that in effect the SNP constitution became meaningless. This was demonstrated in last years leadership election where the NEC just ignored and overruled the leadership process written in the SNP constitution and decided what should happen. Sturgeon's gang have complete control.
DeleteThe UN's ICJ tells Israel to stop killing Palestinians. The SFA deems it ok to play a game of football at Hampden against Israel whose PM told the ICJ to f**k off. What a disgrace the SFA are.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree, the onus should be on UEFA and FIFA to kick Israel out of international football. It's unrealistic to expect Scotland to forfeit the points.
DeleteJames, I agree the FIFA and EUFA should have banned them but the SFA should do the right thing.
DeleteUnusual for me but I agree with you. The sfa are britnats to the core.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't know if it is unusual or not for you to agree with me as you post under anonymous.
Delete