She played the moral superiority ‘racism’ card on Ian Smart. She played the moral superiority ‘misogyny’ card on a fellow tweeter for the temerity of calling her “dear”, and she played a faux moral superiority card on this site’s editor when he questioned her endorsement of Nationalist Front website Wings Over Scotland. Here’s why AhDinnaeKen thinks the morally superior one should make a morally superior apology:
By Longshanker aka @Ergasiophobe
WHEN IAN Smart chose to appear on Scotland Tonight earlier this year in May, it was inevitable he’d get a bit of a metaphorical kicking.
He’d previously conjured up a Twitter storm by tweeting, without inverted commas, that Nationalists would turn on the *Polls and the Parkas* in the event of Independence failing – assuming Scotland achieved such a hallowed state.
The big ‘N’ Nationalist with the size ten metaphorical boots, tasked with doing the boot-boy work, was none other than SNP activist and prolific Tweeter Natalie McGarry.
She didn’t miss. Without calling Mr Smart a racist, she played a relatively calm, if somewhat lightweight and unsubstantive, morally superior ‘racism’ card against the beleaguered lawyer.
You can watch the whole self-righteous non-event on YouTube here:
AhDinnaeKen chose to revisit the discussion – for the sake of a bit of empirical research – due to her current ‘inclusive’ and positively ‘progressive’ endorsement of Nationalist Front website Wings Over Scotland.
Here’s what Ms McGarry claimed on Scotland Tonight (7:00 mins) refuting the idea that there’s any kind of “Ethnic Nationalism” taking place within the Yes campaign:
“I totally refute every accusation that Ian is making about any parts of the Yes campaign, having eh, any parts of… any kind of official campaign, or anything that I’ve been involved in, having any racial element, beyond actually wanting to encourage people from other minorities, races, to come to Scotland and to make Scotland their home…” – Natalie McGarry, Scotland Tonight.
All fine and dandy, if somewhat garbled, civically inclusive Nationalist progressive stuff.
So, why revisit old ground? The debate’s moved on from Mr Smart’s questionable grammatical faux pas after all.
The curious part worth a wee bit more investigation however is Ms McGarry’s statement concerning her involvement in the Yes campaign. She specifically stated that nothing she has been involved in with the Yes campaign had any racial element.
What’s changed since then? Stuart Campbell of Wings Over Scotland wrote a whole article based on the premise that “everyone in Britain is a moron”.
Refining the somewhat generic statement, he proceeded to engage in racial abuse, stating that the English were “whimpering, spineless cowards” along with the Welsh who were “snivelling, forelock tugging wretches”.
An AhDinnaeKen piece entitled, “Agonising aunt: Natalie McGarry’s feminist love in with a hate preaching misogynist“, chose to highlight – in our* inimitable style – misgivings, following Natalie’s decision to let her writings be published on the Nationalist Front website Wings Over Scotland.
Her reaction to our feature was inevitably lightweight and a tad disappointing. She attempted to call out AhDinnaeKen for its number of followers, claimed not to have read the piece because she had previously blocked @Ergasiophobe on Twitter and proceeded with a lowly ad hominem attack on four Re-Tweeters linking to the AhDinnaeKen piece, by calling them “idiots”.
A curious state of affairs given her alleged and self proclaimed ‘positive’, ‘inclusive’ and ‘civic’ Nationalist credentials.
Let’s take a closer look at the blocking claim and Ms McGarry’s subsequent Tweets. Consider the Twitter based email alert below:
The date’s clear to see. People clued up on searching Twitter timelines would have no problem in confirming that no Twitter communication took place between @Ergasiophobe and Natalie from the 13th August. So why she chose to block the acount after following it is anyone’s guess. Curious and, yes, a teensy bit bizarre.
So go on Natalie, please explain why you followed @Ergasiophobe in the first place and consequently blocked it later. Maybe a big boy did it and ran away. Eh?
As Noam Chomsky said: “If you don’t like what someone has to say, argue with them.” Or ignore them. But to follow and then block and then make a virtue out of the blocking with nothing having happened in-between is at best curious, at worst, hypocritical grandstanding.
Indeed, it’s almost as strange as having your councillor mother attack a Scotsman columnist for “barefaced lies”. Note that SNP Councillor McGarry relies on Wings Over Scotland to do her thinking for her. Like mother like daughter?
As for this:
Fair comment or infantilism? You decide. It’s worth remembering, Hitler had millions of followers, Jesus had twelve. Is the number of followers so important to her that she would make a judgement call based on numbers of followers? Sounds more like standard evasion of argument in anyone’s language.
For Natalie’s information, I’m merely offering friendly advice. Publicly endorsing Campbell helps undermine and damage the Yes campaign. It associates the campaign with intolerant divisive extremism and nasty abusive cybernats. According to the Daily Record, the Yes campaign distanced themselves from Campbell due to his extreme views.
Last but not least, there’s McGarry’s ad hominem attack on the four ReTweeters of the original AhDinnaeKen piece highlighting her hypocrisy. Ms McGarry claims not to have read the piece yet chose to attack those who had. Civic? Inclusive? Progressive? Answers on a referendum ballot paper please!
AhDinnaeKen didn’t mean this feature to be so long. We* actually meant it to cover the recent For a’ That podcast in which Natalie shared a platform with Wings Over Scotland’s Stuart Campbell and singularly failed to challenge him on any of his extremist views.
Looks like that’s going to have to be another blog. Ho hum. Till next time then.