Will you vote for independence?

[Quartz]

Abuse as usual for the Nats: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Cybernat-abuse-after-1m-pro-UK-donation.html

 

[redsquirrel]

Well they've not rounded properly then.

If yes went up by 2.8 (for example), no down by 2.4 and don't knows up by 0.4 then to round to 1 significant figure gives the values in that twitter post. I'm not sure why you think this remarkable, if you round to whole numbers you can quite easily get the above.

 

[Quartz]

More Nat nastiness.

 

[danny la rouge]

OK, let's be honest about this. A minority of idiots online are arseholes. You can find them online without too much hardship. We know that. It's not just amongst Yes supports you find them. You can go online any day and see death threats or threats of violence against Salmond, insults about his wife, or misogynist abuse of Sturgeon, or other Yes figures from Unionist trolls. What you won't see, though, is the same prominence given to that in the media. The media is - save for one Sunday paper with a small circulation - pro Union.

And let's be honest about something else. When it comes to name-calling on the No side, that goes right to the top: Blair McDougall disseminated James MacMillan’s ludicrous article smearing Yes artists as like Nazis, calling it a “must read”. We now have the audio of Alistair Darling agreeing with a New Statesman journalist’s description of the Yes side as “blood and soil” nationalists. He had the opportunity to disagree, but didn’t he said that’s what they were “at heart”. This gives permission to some Unionists to behave badly online, and they do.

What's more, when Alistair Darling said Salmond was "like Kim Jong-il" for complaining about the amount of coverage UKIP got during the lead-up to the Euro elections, his excuse later was that it was "a joke". Can you imagine if a Yes figure had likened anyone on the No side to a dictator? John McTernan, a No figure, was on TV last night, and in reply to Iain McWhirter repeated the "it's a joke" line, saying Salmond should "be able to take it" as he was "in public life". Well, if Salmond should be able to take that, shouldn't a member of the shadow cabinet be "able to take" the two accusations levied at her (in a private email to a Telegraph journalist, which the journalist made public) by Campbell Gunn? 1. (incorrect) that she is a relation of Pat Lally, former provost of Glasgow. (Hardly the gravest of insults). 2. (correct) that she is a member of the shadow cabinet. (Again, I'd find that offensive myself, by presumably Ms Lally doesn't).

Doesn't it cut both ways? Or does John McTernan get to be the arbiter of who should be able to take a joke? (Not that the two accusations levied at Ms Lally by Campbell Gunn, one of them true, in any way compare).

Furthermore, JK Rowling, entitled though she is to support the Union and to donate to Better Together, said in her article on her website announcing her decision that "when people try to make this debate about the purity of your lineage, things start getting a little Death Eaterish for my taste". She knew exactly what she accusing the Yes side of. If you don't get the Death Eater reference, it's about wizards who call magic people with one or more non magic parents "mudbloods".

She is out of order on that. The Yes campaign is not in the least interested in the "purity of your lineage". I've never met anyone on the Yes side who is. It's a smear pure and simple. But she is allowed to make that accusation without it being called abuse, smearing decent activists. Some arsehole on twitter calls her a "specky bastard" (which is childish and uncalled for) and it's front page news.

(Incidentally, this John McTernan is the same John McTernan who knows a thing or two about orchestrating Twitter campaigns: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-...media-advisor-twitter-army-attack-coa/5158680).

 

[pogofish]

More Nat nastiness.

The No-lot can dish it-up just as unpleasantly as the Yes TBH, neither side can claim to be angelic or entirely free of fucking arseholes in this.

 

[Quartz]

OK, let's be honest about this. A minority of idiots online are arseholes.

The number of arseholes in this thread would indicate otherwise. Anyway, it's not just the abuse, it's the handling of the abuse. Granted the guy shouldn't have done it, but when caught he should have resigned, and when he didn't resign, the Yes campaign should have fired him. By not firing him, they're appearing to condone his actions.

The No-lot can dish it-up just as unpleasantly as the Yes TBH, neither side can claim to be angelic or entirely free of fucking arseholes in this.

I quite agree.

 

[8ball]

OK, let's be honest about this. A minority of idiots online are arseholes.

Rather a sunny appraisal of things if you don't mind me saying.

 

[geminisnake]

The No-lot can dish it-up just as unpleasantly as the Yes TBH, neither side can claim to be angelic or entirely free of fucking arseholes in this.

But the No side are always the ones to phone the police, get the front page of the MSM, cry foul if someone on the Yes side sneezes
Strange how JK is wonderful but the Weirs were deluded

 

[danny la rouge]

The number of arseholes in this thread would indicate otherwise.

There are arseholes on every thread. But they're the minority. (There's a difference between robust debate and being abusive).

Anyway, it's not just the abuse, it's the handling of the abuse. Granted the guy shouldn't have done it, but when caught he should have resigned, and when he didn't resign, the Yes campaign should have fired him. By not firing him, they're appearing to condone his actions.

The guy shouldn't have done it. Done what, though? sent a private email to a journalist friend? Made a mistake about who her father in law is? Or accused her of being what she is - a member of the shadow cabinet?

None of that is abuse. It's low grade briefing, and it is what government advisors do all day. The email has been published by the Telegraph. You can read it. It's hardly Malcolm Tucker.

So, what is the guy resigning for? It can only be the error. The error about her being related to Pat Lally. Is that a resigning matter?

 

[weepiper]

Some interesting breakdown of the latest Survation poll here

A majority of people in the north-east support Scottish independence, according to a new poll.

The latest survey by Survation showed that 43.5% of people in the region would vote Yes if the referendum was held tomorrow, while 38.3% said No.

Even more alarming for Better Together was that Glasgow – seen as the critical battleground in the referendum – also switched from a No majority to a Yes since last month.

Support for independence in Scotland’s biggest city was up six points to 44.5%, while the proportion of No voters was down about four points to 35.4%.

 

[Frankie Jack]

The online version of the 17 page, £720k cost, Better Together Bumphlet expected to fall though our letterboxes. soonish.

"Mr Carmichael said the Government had to ‘give everyone in Scotland every opportunity to make an informed decision in September’. He said the new booklet was a direct response to demands from the public for simple, factual information in a clear format. The Scottish Independence Referendum will take place on September 18."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ying-in-the-united-kingdom-means-for-scotland

 

[Frankie Jack]

Lamont like a rottie with a rag toy.

 

[danny la rouge]

"Online abuse is emanating from both sides, but voters unsure about Scottish independence are more likely to react to serious policy than sniping". http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ish-voters-online-abuse-scottish-independence

 

[butchersapron]

"Online abuse is emanating from both sides, but voters unsure about Scottish independence are more likely to react to serious policy than sniping". http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ish-voters-online-abuse-scottish-independence

I find the first para in that article pretty pathetic. Hacker at large ffs.

 

[danny la rouge]

I find the first para in that article pretty pathetic. Hacker at large ffs.

That's the excuse that the Dignity Project gave; Ruth Wishart didn't originate it. (Between the lines, I'm reading her as finding it far fetched).

 

[butchersapron]

That's the excuse that the Dignity Project gave; Ruth Wishart didn't originate it. (Between the lines, I'm reading her as finding it far fetched).

If she's after a bit of openness why not just say that - it's clearly nonsense. I don't see the point of the piece to be honest. The NGO state linked yes network/the no direct state linked network- that might be worth investigating.

 

[danny la rouge]

If she's after a bit of openness why not just say that - it's clearly nonsense. I don't see the point of the piece to be honest. The NGO state linked yes network/the no direct state linked network- that might be worth investigating.

The point is that the last few days up here, every front page, every news bulletin (radio, TV), radio phone-ins, and the current affairs programmes, such as BBC's Scotland 2014, has run with the idea that all online abuse is from the Yes side, that it actually typifies the Yes side (rather than being the exception), and - in some instances - parroting the line from Labour/Lib Dems/Tories that it's a deliberate campaign explicitly co-ordinated by the First Minister's office. Ruth Wishart is saying, "get some perspective; it's trolls, and they're not the preserve of Yes supporters".

 

[butchersapron]

The point is that the last few days up here, every front page, every news bulletin (radio, TV), radio phone-ins, and the current affairs programmes, such as BBC's Scotland 2014, has run with the idea that all online abuse is from the Yes side, that it actually typifies the Yes side (rather than being the exception), and - in some instances - parroting the line from Labour/Lib Dems/Tories that it's a deliberate campaign explicitly co-ordinated by the First Minister's office. Ruth Wishart is saying, "get some perspective; it's trolls, and they're not the preserve of Yes supporters".

The latter bit of the thing i said was worth a look at then?

 

[danny la rouge]

The latter bit of the thing i said was worth a look at then?

The first bit, too, to be fair. I didn't disagree, just saying Ruth Wishart's piece is coming from somewhere. The "cybernat" feeding frenzy was quite something, and has only today somewhat abated because of Hilary Clinton's intervention on the No side in the referendum, and the No side's claim that the Pope has too. (Although that's a creative interpretation of what he actually said).

 

[Quartz]

But the No side are always the ones to phone the police, get the front page of the MSM, cry foul if someone on the Yes side sneezes

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[danny la rouge]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

She isn't saying they do.

 

[butchersapron]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

What a ridiculous thing to post.

 

[DexterTCN]

What a ridiculous thing to post.

Could you stop attacking posters on this thread?

Just...engage. This is important to a lot of people here. No-one here is interested in personal stuff, we're talking about something massive, something that changes things here.

There's no person so low or high that they should make a difference to what this is about.

You have your opinions and your way of expressing them...but your 'side' of things has been losing ground year after year after year.

At some point you have to start wondering if you're part of the problem, no?

Now...I know that particular post was not a prime example of what I mean but you know what I'm saying. Just consider it.

This can't be won by divisiveness. It's not about contrariness or me v you or us v them or this v that.

We want the (re-)creation of a nation.

A nation.

 

[JTG]

Eh?

 

[DotCommunist]

the birth of a nation?

 

[danny la rouge]

the birth of a nation?

Oh, come on Dottie, whatever my disagreements have been with Dexter over the years, I've never seen him say anything that would justify you making that allusion.

The Yes here side has to put up with a lot of that kind of remark, but it's very wide of the mark. Not least because the far right is all on the No side: BNP, Britain First, SDL, UKIP. As well as reactionary sectarians like the Orange Order. (Not that that in itself reflects on the majority of No sympathisers). Furthermore, the leadership of the No side is far more nationalist in its rhetoric, talking about national pride, and appealing to notions of identity, Britishness, feeling British. The Yes campaign doesn't do that with Scottishness, because for them it isn't about identity, it's about instrumental reasons for independence.

 

[danny la rouge]

And Dexter, whatever your beef with butchers is, that was quite a rant to go on based on his way of expressing more of less what I'd also said: that Quartz had misinterpreted gem's post by a wide margin.

 

[danny la rouge]

Better Together film ‘made in BBC studio’

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/better-together-film-made-in-bbc-studio-1-3444021

"BBC Scotland was last night embroiled in a major row over its impartiality amid concerns it flouted its own editorial and commercial guidelines by allowing a Better Together cinema advertisement to be filmed at its headquarters using the corporation’s in-house crew."

 

[DexterTCN]

And Dexter, whatever your beef with butchers is, that was quite a rant to go on based on his way of expressing more of less what I'd also said: that Quartz had misinterpreted gem's post by a wide margin.

Wasn't a rant, it was a speech.

I was enjoying myself typing that out last night.

 

[weepiper]

On the 'blood and soil'/'Death-Eaterish' thing

http://logicsrock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/blo-ea-bjo-fuil-is-talamh-blood-and-soil.html

Attempts to demonize Cybernats as being the same as the electronic equivalent of the Special Brew-swilling drunks you sometimes see in the street effing and blinding at everybody are a classic British Establishment ploy to turn the electorate back to getting their information solely from the bought-and-paid-for professional politicians and their lackeys in the media. Independence is about thinking for yourself and doing your own research. Google is your friend.