About two years too late, the Yes Scotland campaign has started to distance itself from controversial pro-independence blog Wings over Scotland, run by a Bath based individual who describes himself as “Rev” Stuart Campbell.
The Courier reports that Yes Scotland has asked its Edinburgh Group to stop distributing leaflet that invites people to look at Wings.
This is not just an Edinburgh thing though. I don’t live in Edinburgh and I had a Yes newspaper delivered with this leaflet inside:
Interestingly, the leaflet itself has no imprint, so we have no idea who produced it. All I know is that it came inside the paper.
A member of Liberal Democrat staff also had a Yes canvasser at his door recommend that he check out Wings because the mainstream media was biased.
And, of course, last week Alex Salmond’s Special Adviser Campbell Gunn got away with telling lies about Better Together campaigner Clare Lally in an email to the Telegraph from his official email address. Those lies bore a remarkable similarity to an inaccurate story that had appeared on Wings that very morning. I’d love to know how much of their time Government Special Advisers spent looking at this site from their official equipment, but even if we did FOI it, the Government wouldn’t respond. They have serious form on that.
The reason Yes has acted now is after Conservative MSP Alex Johnstone complained about this article in which he was variously described as “sewer-dwelling vermin” and an “ar*****e”.
Yes should have been worried long before now, though. There’s been plenty cause. Here are a few examples:
There was the time “Rev Stu” did me over for suggesting that being in the UK gave us more influence in the world to tackle violence against women and girls. “Vote yes for global rape” was not how I put it and is not how I would put it. Conservative leader Ruth Davidson got the same treatment when she had the temerity to suggest the same thing.
This post is truly bizarre. Apparently, because Danish women are less amenable to an idiot’s manipulative attempts at seduction, then women in Scotland should vote for independence. He’s not really much of a fan of feminists, though.
He also suffers from Galloping Transphobia as this Twitter tirade on Chelsea Manning shows, earning him A Thousand Flowers’ “Weekly W*****” award.
One of his lowest points came in 2012 when he posted this mock up Better Together poster which was at the very best in appalling taste. And when Willie Rennie tackled him on it, Rev Stu told him to “Go f*** himself.”
It’s clear that the alarm bells should have been ringing in Yes Scotland’s HQ about this character long before now. They should have proactively been ensuring that there could be no link between Wings and them.
Oh, and just as a bit of a bonus, here’s what he was up to last week. He said he couldn’t find any examples of any abuse of Clare Lally, the mum and Better Together activist who was vilified online. I helped him out – by pointing him to the comments site of, er, Wings over Scotland where she was variously described as a fool, an idiot, a liar and was accused of exploiting her disabled daughter for political purposes.
There are people who present the nationalist cause well and are worth reading. Peat Worrier and Kate Higgins will always make you think and they conduct themselves with engaging decorum and in the case of the former, a fair bit of mischievous humour that actually is funny. If Yes is looking for good people to promote, then they should start with these two.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back to Butterley Tunnel on the Cromford Canal
Are we programmed to die?
Fraser's weekly ward surgeries tonight! #dundeewestend
An online conspiracy?
Alex Hosking
graham
Daniel Stylianou
Craig Levene
Paul Barker
28 Comments
If you check with Yes Scotland, you’ll discover that the story about Yes Scotland distancing themselves from Wings over Scotland is false, as are the details about the leaflet. 🙂
” fool, an idiot, a liar and was accused of exploiting her disabled daughter for political purposes.”
She’s an advisor to Scottish Labour on carer’s issues who doesn’t know that the NHS in Scotland is, and always has been, a completely independent entity.
I’d say that makes her all of the above, to be honest. Or at least ignorant.
Also, to be petty, Campbell Gunn did not disseminate ‘lies’ about Ms Lally. ‘Lie’, I’d just about give you, if you were referring to her not being the daughter in law of Pat Lally, as Mr Gunn erroneously claimed. The rest of what he said is true, and should have been the story: Scottish Labour misrepresenting a political activist as an ‘ordinary mother’.
For the avoidance of doubt, I wholeheartedly condemn abuse from any person, individual or party; but if you’re thin skinned enough to believe that what you’ve quoted above constitutes abuse, then we may as well go back to the playground.
I think we need a discussion about what we actually think is unacceptable in political debate.
Is it calling someone a liar? or a fool? or a numpty?
(Does it matter if the person involved is an ordinary mum, a party activist, neither or both?)
If the excellent Lallands Peat worrier is okay, what is it about “But only someone totally ignorant of the law of the UK, or with a conscious intent to mislead, could mint a paragraph so liberally supplied with ignorance and distortion.” that is better than calling John McTernan a fool or a liar?
Is it calling someone an arsehole, or a wanker?
(Is it worse to call an MSP an arsehole, or a blogger a wanker? Do **** make it better or worse?)
Is it comparing someone to Kim Jong Il, Or Vidkun Quisling?
Is it relevant whether someone is a millionaire, is English, is old, is a former tory/lb dem/labour/snp donor, is American is based in Bath?
(Is there anything wrong with these things, and if so should we mention them unless they are actually relevant?)
It is easy to point at something and say you have a problem with it, but it is much harder to set out the standard you expect people to live up to, other than, ‘what I instinctively do and don’t think is OK.’
While Westminster’s no campaign indulges in gutter politics to try and silence opposition (it uses ignorance as its favourite weapon in its efforts to keep Scotland enslaved by poverty and conformity) campaigning on issues that the public are actually interested in continues…
Today Danny Alexander conceded that the BBC will continue to be available in an independent Scotland contradicting the no campaign’s scaremongering on the subject…
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/19/bbc-share-with-independent-scotland?CMP=ema_546
Earlier this week, prominent no campaigner and former UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown called for a unified UK-wide education system providing a timely reminder that the powers the Scottish parliament currently has can be retracted by Westminster at any time. Gordon Brown’s intervention raises the spectre of a no vote leading to the likes of Michael Gove running Scottish schools, imposing free schools and students having to pay £9000 tuition fees on Scotland. A no vote cannot even guarantee the powers that the Scottish Parliament presently has let alone deliver new ones. The positive impact that Scottish Liberal Democrats have had such as free personal care for the elderly and the abolition of full time FE and HE tuition fees can only be protected from Westminster with a YES vote and independence.
A ‘no’ voter here in #colinsburgh says the Better Together campaign need to stop telling lies. #courierindyroadshow
I trust that Caron will condemn Ian Smart with the same Venom as written above.
Ian Smart
For those South of the border reading this site.
Analysis: We need to talk about Wings over Scotland
And finally politics is on fire in Scotland and that should give comfort to other inhabitants of these isles who only have the MSM to listen to that Britain is changing for the better via social media not controlled by thew establishment.
7pm 20th June Cumbernauld Cat Boyd, Carol …
These events are funded solely on grassroots funding not any fat cats listen and learn.
Sorry about so many links and hope that people realise that career party politics is dying as it kills democracy.
I agree with Al – liberals should be working to support Scottish self determination out of poverty and conformity not peddling attempts at ‘guilt by association with random fringe activists’. That is a very sharp double-edged sword!
“About two years too late, the Yes Scotland campaign has started to distance itself from controversial pro-independence blog Wings over Scotland”
According to this, they already distanced themselves from WoS over nine months ago :-
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/yes-campaign-distance-themselves-pro-independence-2266858
wow the bitter togthers are really getting desperate when they start posting rubbish. Looks like the Rev’s site is having to great an effect that he must be discredited with innuendo. Several papers have been force to print retractions over printed lies attributed to him. vote YES and support a honest media
Dear Caron,
It seems to me that you are unjustifiably maligning Stu Campbell.
The usual effect of that is to drive even more people to view his site at Wings over Scotland. They then find that he is not as portrayed by his envious opponents.
So thanks 🙂
“Wings over Scotland”
Aren’t they a band who’re ‘on the run”?
Or, are you suggesting they should be ‘Banned’ on their (print) run? 😉
Sad to see you are jumping on the bandwagon and attacking Wings over Scotland.
Have you even bothered to read some of the following articles which debunk unionist scare stories from borders, to currency, to the myth of Scots being ‘subsidy junkies’:
BORDERS MYTH
http://wingsoverscotland.com/crossing-the-borders/
SUBSIDY JUNKY MYTH
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-news-we-knew/
CURRENCY MYTHS
http://wingsoverscotland.com/joining-the-euro-for-idiots/
Juan, pro-indy people gloss over the problems, anti indy people make a meal of them. The truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle, but to suggest that all these things can be accomplished without cost is disingenuous.
There are only 14 comments on this thread.
Is that because those critical of your stance are not allowed “air space”? . . . or are only the NO vote allowed a voice ?
Have you actually read the comments above Silent Hunter?
In response to Paul Weller:
Yes, Paul; I have.
I was alluding to a previous comment of mine which did not make it through the “moderation” process, and the only reason I can surmise, since it wasn’t profane, libellous or inflammatory, is that the supporters of the YES campaign are not exactly welcome here.
It seems that any amount of ordure can be flung at the YES campaign, since it chimes with your senior partners in Government, but we are supposed to simply “keep quiet” and just “take it”.
Well, forgive me; I have no intention of meekly remaining “silent” (despite my moniker) when the Scottish people are patronised by people who can parade their anti Scottish pap . . . just because it’s “their” blog.
Or is that the way of LDV? . . . If I can’t win the game, then I’m taking “my” ball home?
Silent Hunter,
Surely you wouldn’t want to imply that anyone who was against independence was anti Scottish, now, would you?
Because as someone who, like Charles Kennedy, is a highlander, a Scot, a Brit and a European, I would find that quite offensive.
Caron
You should check your “facts ” before going to print!
I certainly trust the news articles on wings above the MSM.
I trust the MSM more than the LibDems.
You are keeping up the brave face but even you must have serious doubts about Danny Alexander. The only one I still have some regard for is Charles Kennedy.
The LibDems have not only aligned themselves with the Tories at Westminster you have given them your full support in Scotland in the referendum debate.
As a party you have surrendered your principals and I hope you pay a heavy price.
Any decent Liberal would acknowledge that the desire for a fairer Scotland is worthy aim. They would also recognise that such a society is impossible in a UK moving ever right.
The question of whether Scotland should be independent surely needs long-term thinking, because independence isn’t easy to arrange and would almost certainly be highly embarrassing for scots to want to reverse later.
By contrast, the present movement rightwards in England, if such a movement exists, is likely to be a rather shorter-term affair, and is likely to reverse quickly when the electorate find out how awful the right are at governing.
Silent Hunter
Your comment was rejected because it contravened our comments policy in not being polite. See here:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/comment-policy
Also, the email address you entered does not appear to be valid. Please use a valid email address when entering comments.
Anyone can see that there are numerous pro-“Yes” comments above, which makes your point rather lame.
Richard Dean
When the UN was formed it comprised of 50 countries, it is now almost 200 strong.
How many of the commonwealth countries are in the queue to come back under Westminster rule?
Can I suggest you visit the businessforscotland website and look at some of the facts on wealth generation and distribution.
Perhaps you could explain why we are the 4th. Most unequal nation in the world.(gap between rich and poor)
Do you deny the growth in food banks?
Why have all the main parties committed to a Tory austerity plan?
Why are the poorest and most vulnerable in society taking the biggest hit on these cuts?
@Caron Lindsay
I presented links to articles which debunk myths such as there being borders in an independent Scotland. There are none at the moment and no independence supporters wants any when we win independence in September.
The cost of not building something nobody wants is zero. Fact.
“The truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle?”
Eh! That makes no sense if one side is categorically telling the truth about the issue whilst the other is lying. e.g. Sterling can be used by any country informally yet the No campaign have suggested Scotland could actually be prohibited from using it. Nonsense. The truth doesn’t lie in the middle on that issue.
OR
Pensions may not be guaranteed in an independent Scotland. Another lie peddled by the No Campaign in the full knowledge that the Department of Works and Pensions have stated pensions will be guaranteed in the event of a yes vote.
Again, the truth isn’t that the DWP have said some pensions will be safe but others won’t be. One side, the No campaign, is scaremongering and lying.
On your response to Silent Hunter I don’t think he suggested that no supporters are all anti-Scottish. I do though think it is perfectly possible for a No supporter to be anti-Scottish and I consider many No supporters to be so.
Are all no supporters Anti-Scottish? Of course not. Many are just scared because they’ve been told for generations whether directly or implicitly through media (including the BBC) that Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid to run it’s own affairs.
However, If you know that Scotland could be a wealthy and successful independent country but continue to denigrate it and its people day in and day out by scaremongering and peddling lies to undermine the fact that people , all people who live in Scotland and consider it home, are as capable as the people of any other country to run our own affairs then yes that is Anti-Scottish.
I don’t really understand why being like Charles Kennedy, in the sense that he’s from the Highlands, means a person is immune from being anti-Scottish or demonstrating anti-Scottish sentiment.
Look at George Galloway. He’s Scottish and hates his own country and people so much that he believes Palestine should be independent country (Which I agree with by the way) but not Scotland.
Proud Scot/Brits doesn’t make someone immune either. If there is a conflict between Westminster acting in the interests of the rUK to the detriment of Scotland and Holyrood acting in the best interests of Scotland to the detriment of the rUK who do the Proud Scot/Brits support. In my experience it is almost inevitably Wesminster? Anti-Scottish? Yes because the Proud Scot/Brit believes that Britain is superior to Scotland and must prevail.
@Richard Dean
I’m assuming, so apologies if I’ve done so incorrectly, that you think Scotland will want to re-join the UK if we end up economically worse off after independence. It doesn’t matter to me if that’s the case. I have never wanted to be part of the UK and never will. I want the people of Scotland to govern themselves. and be responsible for our own fate, for better or for worse.
The Rep of Ireland has historically been economically much worse off than the UK but they would never dream of volunteering to give away their independence to be part of the UK.
I appreciate it’s a hard concept to grasp but it’s not about money. We just don’t want to ever be ruled by Westminster ever again. No party in Westminster will ever put the interests of 5.3 million people in Scotland before those of Middle England let alone the whole of the UK. Why would they?
Ditch the fear, support Yes and at least Scotland will become a true democracy. Isn’t that the type of political movement a liberal democrat should support?
P.s. Credit where it’s due. I haven’t had issues posting here and the responses from the mods (whilst I disagree with you) seem courteous and polite. Long may that continue.
@ Juan P
“The truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle?” Eh! That makes no sense if one side is categorically telling the truth about the issue whilst the other is lying”
I think the two examples you give – currency and pensions – are perfect examples of this. On currency, as you say, sterling is a tradeable international currency and there’s nothing to stop an independent Scotland using it. But on the other hand, this isn’t the currency union Alec Salmond has been calling for. That would require rUK to agree as it needs both sides’ agreement. All 3 main UK wide parties have said they would never agree to this and I agree with them – it would be unacceptably risky to agree to a currency union with little obvious benefit to the rUK but such massive risks attached. The only way they would ever have agreed is by Scotland agreeing essentially to having the rUK sign off its budgets and spending plans each year – hardly independence which is why I’m surprised the SNP want a currency union (they surely can’t expect that the rUK would have agreed to one without such guarantees to the rest of the UK).
On pensions, I’m sure some arrangement would be come to between Scotland and rUK concerning people who were say born in one country, worked in another and now live somewhere else. I can’t see either Scotland or rUK leaving pensioners destitute. But on the other hand I can see Alec Salmond saying something like “anyone who once lived in the rest of the UK who now lives in Scotland is the rUK’s problem” whereas the rUK disagreeing and after a while saying “these are Scottish citizens and it’s up to Scotland to pay their pensions”. This is all guessing of course, but as before the truth is probably somewhere in between.
“Are all no supporters Anti-Scottish?” – this shocking suggestion gives the game away. Are you denigrating a good half of all Scots? Are these Scots anti-Scottish for not agreeing with Alec Salmond?
And pensions – I can
Question asked at conference in Brussels today: is the EU responsible for independence movements in Scotland and Catalonia? Answer: No, but it has created a framework in which states should be able to divide peacefully. The constitutional development of participatory democracy in a multinational context and the legal permissibility of individuals having multiple identities have made peaceful secession thinkable and probably also made it possible. Who is responsible for developments in Scotland and Catalonia? Liberals and populists. Not least the great American Liberal Woodrow Wilson, for piecing together a doctrine for self determination; and populists of all shades for exploiting it. Aberdeen Univ’s Bryan McGregor used three nasty populist arguments. 1. Scotland would be better off (aka ‘They’re stealing our money’). 2 . Independence would bring social justice (aka ‘They’re nasty people; at least the nastiness which replaces theirs will be home grown’). 3. We want to make our own decisions (aka ‘We ‘re taking our wicket home’ – same argument as UKIP uses against the EU). The question for Liberals is ‘How far can you take the principle of self determination?’. Gladstone would have argued ‘As far as is consistent with good government’, and would qualify his trust in the people with a Liberal dose of prudence. Is making both Scotland and rump UK weaker within a wider context (eg. the EU) consistent with good government? Only if the benefits of independence outweigh it.
Both sides of the debate have been guilty of making false promises and neither has a monopoly of the truth.
As Liberal Democrats we should be encouraging honest debate, which involves much more than both sides just presenting their version of “facts” to justify their previously stated positions.
Sometimes the truth lies somewhere between the two sets of “facts” presented and at other times this is not so, for example when one of the supposed facts is simply not true, and it should then be exposed for what it is.
One article well worth reading was by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian on 4th September, where he explains why he would vote No if he was given a vote while living in England and why he would vote Yes if he lived in Scotland.
Wings Over Scotland’s Wee Blue Book is now being given out by Yes street stall campaigners. Also, yes campaigners are now targetting No campaigners to quiz us on our views, so even with a No badge on I was given one of these booklets as he was so confident it would challenge my views.
What I found in it, p60-61, it would be unforgivable to let Yes win without exposing. Under “Negotiations” on what would happen after a Yes vote: Scotland being out of the EU would certainly hurt Scotland, but it would massively damage the rUK too in several very obvious ways. .. It would be disastrous for rUK businesses, but more to the point it would cause bureaucratic chaos the likes of which has never been seen on these islands, as 400 000 English, Welsh, and Northern Irish people suddenly lost the automatic right to live in Scotland and a similar number of Scots risked expulsion from the rest of the UK. It is barely an exaggeration to say that the whole of Britain would grind to a halt. People wouldn’t know who they could do business with and who might be deported the next day.”
– !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS A THREAT TO CARRY OUT A MASS DEPORTATION! A RACIST ATROCITY! IT IS IN THE CASE YES ACTIVISTS ARE NOW MAKING TO THE PUBLIC IN THE STREET! THERE IS NO THREAT ON THE BRITISH SIDE TO THROW ANYONE OUT, THIS COMES ENTIRELY FROM THE YES SIDE. DO WHAT WE WANT OR WE THREATEN TO OVERTURN THE LIVES AND TAKE AWAY THE LIVELIHOODS OF, AND DEPORT, THEY ACTUALLY SAY THEMSELVES DEPORT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE! WHO AT PRESENT LIVE PEACEFULLY IN A UNITED COUNTRY!
This needs sharing around, I’m sending copies of it to the media. And remembering that Yes’s citizenship plans don’t make it unrefusable by descent from a parent, and Alex Salmond himself would not tell me on his phone-in on Jul 29 it would be unrefusable, you can tell that by “English Welsh and Northern Irish” who would lose their residency and become subject to deportation at a day’s notice, they likely count a good number of Scots by background and family too!
@Maurice Frank
Calm doon Maurice.
I’ve posted a link to the WBB below. It’s quite clear that it would be the rUK who would expose their citizens to risk in the event that they, to use a technical term from Scotia, acted like fannies and blocked Scotland joining the EU.
http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/WeeBlueBookDesktopEdition.pdf
If you’re going to reference articles, publications etc during the campaign then please add links so people can read the article and make up their own minds regarding the content.
@Julian Tisi
I didn’t reference no campaign scare stories on a ‘currency union’. I referenced the fact the No campaign consistently lied to the people of Scotland and told them that we could not keep the pound.
This is a lie and was repeated over and over again in referendum material produced by all the parties campaigning for a no vote.
On pensions it has been made clear by the DWP that pensions are guaranteed in the event of a Yes vote. Again, the no campaign have frightened many pensioners into believing that their pensions are at risk in the event of a no vote. That is a categorical and disgusting lie.
On a lighter note it was good to see that our Imperial Masters were given a warm Glasgow welcome as they strode up Buchanan Street today:
I voted for Lib Dems last referendum thinking they were a left leaning progressive party…NEVER AGAIN EVER EVER EVER!
Juan P
Thank for the clip of two guys on a rickshaw pricking the pomposity of the hundred Labour MPs from England, looking a bit lost in Buchanan St.
The Empire Strikes Back 🙂
Ingenuity and humour pulls the rug from under the Imperial Masters.
Luke Sky Walker would obviously vote YES.