“In response to those who reckon Broon isn't responsible for the US subprime crisis. If Broon had stopped the Brit banks from taking on the US toxic debt, there would've been no subprime scandal as the US bamks would have been unable to lay off the debts.”Let’s take a quick look at the mindset of someone who could hatch such an inane argument.
On Scottish athletes’ Olympic success:
“Gawd, it's like reading the minutes of a BNP rally with all these English wannabees venting their spleen! Enjoy your flags boys and girls. This may be the last time you'll be welcoming Scottish athletes home with the butcher's apron!”On English people, via a seemingly malfunctioning keyboard:
I don't hate the *nglish people. I don't even think about them! Like the Poles, the Grench or the Germans, they're Europena partners. Unlike Scotland however, they don't have citizens urging they be ruled by another country.And on Unionists, and how we’re viewed by proponents of a kinder, gentler, civic nationalism:
“Let's face it, you cannot be Scottish and condone London rule over Scotland.”
“It is time that the people of Scotland recognised the enemy in their midst. The naysaying unionists who will do anything to curry favour with a foreign power.”
“The defenders of the failed British State are a cancer within our society who are responsible for keeping the people down for centuries. It's time to say to these people that they must accept the realities of the new Scotland or leave.”
“I called unionistas a 'cancer' and I stand by that. A cancer rots from within and that's what the unionistas have been trying to do with Scotland. At every juncture, these 'people' have nothing to say to Scots except how bad they are.” [link]
(and to me) “Wouldn't you be happier south of the border among your own kind?”
You know there's a reason why these posts attract 0 comments while the ones where you quote "Centre for Economics and Business Research" get 14+.
Still, as long as you're happy...
True. But the penny will drop eventually.
You still think these comments are uncharacteristically extreme, don't you, Jeff?
In some cases, the only real differences between these kinds of comments and those of senior SNP politicians is the style of language used.
For example, I could easily establish conceptual links between much of Mikey's thinking and quotes of SNP politicians: the ideas that unionists are less Scottish, an enemy in our midst, inherently negative, that England is "foreign" etc.
Do you think that might kickstart some more debate? I had hoped that simply collating some of this material might have been sufficient.
I am in mixed minds about this. First off, though, there is no question about witch-hunts: the posters SU features use nicknames.
Everyone should recognize that the Internet can be an exceptionally stupid place, and I'm not too keen on using a pejorative as a standard description, but these individuals are quite clearly nutters. Anyone with a modicum of awareness can divine that from their writing style, their literacy levels and their references. They are people who'd spend Friday night brawling outside pubs.
SU has previously linked these exposés to SNP and other public figures' statements, so it is reasonable to ask what is inspiring such toxicity.
It should be simple. If anti-English/Westminster idiocy is pedalled, we should object. Then, more than anything, we can call for anti-Scottish idiocy in the English media to be addressed. Likewise, as I recall, it was Kriss Donald's mum, not Labour or SNP politicians, who chased away the BNP trying to make capital from her son's murder.
No slight against Jeff in particular, but I can appreciate why SNP supporters might not want to discuss it. Another thoroughly good egg here in Chris, aka Leaves on the Line, from whom - even his blog profile - I can sense similar embarrassment as McCain is feeling towards what his Veep is whipping up.
As for the Butcher's Apron tosh, since was the last time these nutters said similar about the tricolour of Russia (scorched-earth policy in Chechnya)?
Thanks for your comments GS... I'm really glad that my efforts to keep my debating style good natured is recognised.
I have to say that these continued cybernat postings really put me off this blog. They're just a little too pious for my liking, especially as we all know that lunatic fringes exist on both sides. I've also read some incredibly rude and offensive unionist postings on the Scotsman/Herald boards yet I never try and tarnish the whole Labour or Unionist movement with their rantings.
The anonymity behind some of the posts does get to me - little men with big keyboards and all that - that's why I have chosen to give my full name and email address on my Blogger profile. I challenge all others (including SU) to do the same.
However, this one time I will engage with the underlying reasons behind SU's posts on the matter:
If you actually meet genuine party members and get involved as I have you will see that the anti-English sentiment just doesn't exist. Hell I'm English and I don't even have any contrived family links .. I've just chosen to settle in Scotland and as part of doing so I have become convinced of the case for self-determination. I'll go so far as to acknowledge a few young turks here and there that get too excited from time to time, but they are firmly batted down and they're no more extreme or representative than the student wings of the other parties...
I do however really object to the received wisdom that is started to being promoted: All rantings online are cybernats, all cybernats are representative of members and supporters, all members and supporters are inherently bad people... Oh and there's a central office hand behind it all unifying us with policy and bad feeling. It really is nonsense. Another challenge - be bothered enough to meet and get to know your political rivals... You'll find that in the main they are decent, mainstream human beings...
Yes, I'm not too sure why you picked out "Mikey" when there are so many other mentalists trolling the newspaper threads, with a thousand variations of "Brown has crashed HBOS to stop Scottish independence".
Unfortunately even Jamieson and Kerevan at the Hootsmon seem to share some views with the mentalist camp.
Since this thread is diverging anyway, here are some diverging thoughts.
We "unionistas" need to start on the case for the referendum. I don't feel 100% confident that the party machines will do it right.
(I quite like "unionistas". There is a long tradition of adopting insults as names: Tories, Whigs, and the Nats are doing it now.)
Debunking Nat myths is easy. GERS will take care of itself. McCrone is easily disposed of, when you look at the actual content. Of course this applies to logic and facts, the presentation needs some work.
But there also needs to be a positive case. This can't just rest on economic factors but also on personal and social ones.
It strikes me that here could be a good place to do it. Of course SU, it's your train-set. There's also the question of whether to do it in public or put it behind a password, and then who gets access.
(And whether or not you make that sentence public too!)
Also, SU, I'm going to post another item to this thread even though it doesn't fit. You might want to use it if you do something on the HBOS saga.
sm753:
Sorry; as you acknowledged, your HBOS post was off-topic. Perhaps repost it on the “pretty much impossible” thread?
I agree re. "case for the referendum". Please email me; a link is on the "about this blog" page. Let's pool some ideas.
Chris:
I won't be posting my name or address. I have been threatened with physical violence, financial cybercrime, my house being burned down, and more besides.
Whether or not that's seen as a legitimate part of the agenda to silence opponents by little men hiding behind big keyboards, I can't say. But for my children's sake I would rather not take the risk.
Perhaps you're right about these posts having too pious a tone. I try to inject a little humour when I can but sometimes it doesn't sit well with the extremism on display.
Perhaps you also have a point in that I obviously don't feature intemperate posts from unionists. And I have no particular reason to doubt the content of your last paragraph.
But where these posts serve a real purpose is in creating a collection which can be cross-referenced with the public sayings of nationalist politicians to establish why even the SNP's so-called "civic" form of nationalism has within it the potential to give rise to some very distasteful and damaging notions.
G-S:
I don't think they're "quite clearly nutters". Some might be. Others come across relatively normally at other times, but are just rather more fundamentalist.
Joe Middleton of Independence First, for example. He writes pretty well, yet is far more "edgy" than most SNP. Similarly Niall Aslen of Siol Nan Gaidheal, and many others.
Do such views represent a small fringe, a substantial minority or could it be that a majority has learned not to express certain "unacceptable" ideas? A nationalist form of political correctness, if you will. That's where I'm going with this.
Anyone who writes like Mikey or Jim Kay are nutters, and I will stand by that remark. The particular cause they've latched onto is secondary. Others I disagree with may be simply confused or wishful-thinkers (or, even, hush!, noble and sensible), but these two are nutters.
But, again, I agree with Chris that these posts can appear pious. The Herald and Scotsman comments-boxes are nasty places which, we should accept, are encouraged to a great extent by the newspapers - like fighting toddlers - in order to increase their sites hit-rates. I wonder if the posters complaining about globalization of banking reflect on the paradox of their patronizing the big brand names and not smaller sites which lend to discussion more.
However, the respect that he receives from SU, and that I have not seen SU engaging in or encouraging equivalent rhetoric on the Unionist side, should acquit SU to a great degree. As with what I said to you [Chris] over the SIF, if your interlocutor disavows a certain attitude, it should not be his responsibility to continue apologizing for it. Especially when you set yourself apart from the likes or Mikey or Jim Kay.
And, no, we should not be obliged to provide our contact details, and I hope SU complained to site admins about any threats of violence he's received.
Well, greetings all from Perth...
It seems like consensus is breaking out again... Good stuf! My final word on the subject of "cybernats" is that for this one time only ;-) I will say that some mad and objectionable things are said on the Scotsman/Herald boards that embarrass us all and do nothing to further the cause that those posters claim to support. That said it offends me that otherwise intelligent people attempt to link me and my party to the midnight ranters: They are as distant from the SNP as sectarian thugs are from the mainstream unionist parties.
So what's happening at Conference? Well a fascinating lecture this lunchtime on the findings of a comprehensive survey of party members (over 7000 responded) of membership profiles and attitudes. Its going to be published, so will email the link when it appears and will save majority of my comments to hopefully a good strong (well natured) debate another time... But the one thing I will refer to is my soapbox issue: They found that 7.2% of the party were born in England, against 8% overall in Scotland: We are pretty much proportionately representative of the mix of "identities" within Scotland. Also the survey found that "fundamentalism" (yes, they did indeed use that word as a negative in front of the assembled conference) was not a force within the membership and surveyed opinions showed a clear majority support for "pragmatic" politics. Like I said, some fascinating stuff and I will email the link SU when I find it... (I have conference drinking duties for tonight!). If you are interested it was done by the Universities of Strathclyde and Aberdeen...
Other than that a good barnstormer of a speech from Sturgeon. The announcement of the end of all privatisation of hospital cleaning and catering went down very very well with the masses. Labour needs to change their narrative on privatisation/outsourcing/PFI as I think this policy trend will continue to go down well. She did touch on the subject of the economies of Ireland and Norway and whilst made good points probably didn't say enough (ie not tackling commentary about Iceland) - I guess that will be Salmond's job tomorrow. In the meantime, the press seem to be privately positive on direction and progress but seem intent on sticking with editorials that support the Labour narrative (Iceland and the economy etc) in tomorrow's editions.
We'll see... anyway I'm off to catch up with the beer.
Chris
Just like silly Cybernat comments, I have found a little beauty from CyberSomething - Saxon Yolk.
He was commenting on a story in Scotland on Sunday about the remarks David Starkey made on a BBC Radio show. "TV historian David Starkey called Mary, Queen of Scots, "a whore and a trollop and a murderess", accused the Scots of "adoring failure", and branded the SNP "utterly contemptible". He added: "The only victory (Scots] have ever celebrated is Bannockburn; the rest is about wallowing in failure. They even have special music for failure – it's called bagpipes."
If that isn't enough, Saxon Yolk says:
I must say that Mr Sharkey's TV programmes have never been my cup of tea but on this occasion I can find no fault in his analysis.
There are some things that just have to be said and Sharkey has said them.
If you Scotchies don't like hearing them you can always tune in to that new gaylick Channel we bought for you.
I don't think I need comment further.
Saxon Yolk is a ScotNat troll. See this thread for his accidental admission and then retraction of that fact.
SU
On reading his posts, he doesn't quite admit it. However, if this is true, then it's just as bad if not worse. A cowardly misfit at best.
Incidentally, I believe the words uttered by David Starkey himself to be as bad. Verging on rascism, even allowing for his own opinion on the SNP.
Is Andrew going to respond? It really is the pits when someone rolls the hand-grenades back in.
But, even disregarding doubts that an Internet poster is not being entirely truthful with his or her identity, this maps straight back to Andrew's previous diversion of criticism of Salmond's economic savvy to Brown. Unable to respond to a specific criticism of X, he introduces Y (or, what is assumed to be Y) in an effort to make X look less worse in comparison. Does he ever address the actual subject? Such as addressing anti-English bigotry when it appears so he can claim moral highground when highlighting anti-Scottish bigotry?
Furthermore, Saxon Yolk - or, the mask he's wearing - is not nutter material. From what I can see, his postings are coherent (both logically and grammatically) and he does not fly into textual apoplexy when challenged. Not so with Mikey or Jim Kay, who come across as hiding their inner violence.
Then there's the matter of dishing it but not being able to take it.
Finally, The Herald and Scotsman comment sections should be considered jokes unless proven otherwise. A filth-pit the Guardian's comment section may be, but at least it's a separate enterprise with articles written especially for comment. The Herald and Scotsman simply provide existing print edition articles.
But, then, again, they are Scottish. Cheapskates.
True; the admission is tacit, and quickly obscured by further trolling.
But I don't read too much into this kind of behaviour. The internet has attracted such behaviour since Usenet days and it's certainly unrepresentative of any facet of Scottish nationalism, or unionism for that matter.
Previous post was to Andrew BOD.
G-S: Cheapskates??? Hmm.
Ah! Andrew did respond! Still getting the hang of this moderated posting.
Yes, cheapskates. If there's one group which lowers the tone more than the Welsh, it's the Scots.
As my mate France was telling me the other day, humans itch and the really spoil a country.
I approved that comment despite my gut instinct. Please explain...
They're the antitheses to the black-hat nationalism of Plaid or the tartan nationalism of the SNP. Self-depreciating and accepting that our faults are not the fault of the 'English', but inherent to our humanness. Although, I can understand that with the toxic atmosphere such goons have fostered, non-separatists can be jumpy. Which is all the more reason to bring it out in the open.
Like also the haggis boat remark, elicited accusations of self-loathing tend to say more about the accuser than anyone else. Anyone whose sense of national identity is so fragile that they see threats behind this should examine their own priorities before I do mine.
That's all fine and well, but you'll still be accused of saying that Scots lower the tone. And devoid of context or rationale, you'll have no defence.
Not quite. An equal but opposite tone would be, as I saw one poster on The Herald site doing so, describing oneself as a "g/nat slayer", with the implication that he's superior. Plus, denial of any sort of civic pride or national identity within Scotland: effecting English accents; yearning to send one's children to English public schools; considering Burns to be uncouth; calling for the abolition of the Act of Union and Scots Law. That sort of thing.
The above comments were deliberately absurd and mocking of an identity which I have every pride in associating myself with.
GS
I'll forgive your attack because of time for moderation. However, for the record, many of the CyberNat posts that SU has highlighted, some anti-English, are as distasteful to me, as the others that I've come across myself.
On the same subject, please explain your reason for saying that Scots (period) lower the tone. This is a bit of a sweeping statement that needs further examination. I too, am human.
For goodness sake, this is becoming daffy beyond belief! A comment which a proud Welsh nationalist utters or which is intended as a Blackadderian quip is subject to endless justification!
Mikey or Jim Kay or Saxon Yolk are expressing scorn/derision (or, purporting to do so) against a national group other than theirs. Even without considering similarly off-the-cuff remarks I've made about English Democrats, mine was semantically different and minus the implicit threats.
Furthermore, SU and others have asserted that rhetoric from major distribution newspapers (not Internet comments-boxes, but the newspapers themselves) and senior SNP politicians/supporters is fuelling at least two of these posters in the same way that Iain Paisley encouraged hardline Loyalism. Assuming Saxon Yolk is bona fide (and, you know, not lying about his identity, like), where is the appropriate rhetoric from pro-Union figures? That is what is required to link the two.
Lastly, the Saxon Yolk or Wyrdtimes personae are not pro-Union. They advocate ditching Scotland.