Unionists accused of being “anti-Scots” by SNP endorsed website

NOT CONTENT with ‘othering’ Scotsman journalists as rats, the quasi-political, Nazi inspired website, Wings Over Scotland, uses Panelbase poll figures to ‘prove’ that Unionist No voters are actively working against their fellow countrymen. Or so the diminutive demagogue would have you believe. AhDinnaeKen exposes the alleged ‘facts’:

The poster they tried to ban - because it was inaccurate and shite. Funny that!

The poster they tried to ban – because it was inaccurate and shite and looked like the Nationalist Front had arrived in town. Funny that!

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

TWENTY PER cent of Unionists are “anti-Scots” according to a Nationalist supported website.

SNP endorsed, Wings Over Scotland, claimed yesterday that “almost a fifth” of Unionists were actively working against the interests of their own countrymen.

And the website reinforced the claim by referring to recent Panelbase poll data and a ‘cited’ and ‘sourced’ link to another Wings story.

In an analytical polemic entitled, ‘Looking forward with trepidation’, editor of Wings Over Scotland, Stuart Campbell, concluded:

“Advocates of independence are sometimes accused of regarding the No camp as “anti-Scottish”.

“But with nearly 20% of them apparently intending to knowingly and consciously vote for worse treatment for Scotland, it seems to be a charge of which a significant proportion of Unionists are – by their own admission – clearly guilty.”

The phrase “by their own admission” links to another Wings story (Surprise! – Ed) where the use of “their” to imply the plural is soon exposed to be bogus – it refers to the words of one man; ex-Lord Provost of Glasgow, Michael Kelly.

Interestingly, Kelly, holds no position of power in the Labour party and now conducts his business as a “writer and PR consultant”.

Further scrutiny of the Wings link further exposes the tenuous sham of its guilt by association claim.

Following a question from BBC Newsnight’s Gary Robertson on the impact of the chancellor’s ‘No currency union’ speech and Ed Balls support of it, Michael Kelly said: “I believe that Labour in Scotland would be fully behind Balls’s decision today if he was the chancellor.”

The use of the phrase “I believe” by Kelly can hardly be construed as a “significant proportion of Unionists” as asserted by Campbell. Or, for that matter, a concrete reading of the Unionist’s stance in Scotland.

The ‘cited and sourced’ fact of the matter is that Wingsy’s fallacious accusation relies, yet again, on the type of traits and behaviours engaged in by most extremists – all neatly documented by the Laird Wilcox Extremist Traits list.

Paragraph 3, IRRESPONSIBLE SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS of the Laird Wilcox list states:

“Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgements on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things, events, or persons are alike in some respects, they must be alike in most respects. The sloppy use of analogy is a treacherous form of logic and has a high potential for false conclusions.”

The treacherous logic of Wingsy’s sweeping statement – based on the underpinning belief that to be against the currency union is to be anti-Scottish – runs as follows: Michael Kelly is a Labour supporter; he says that Scottish Labour MPs will support Balls; therefore all Scottish Labour MPs will suport Balls because a Labour supporter said they will; Scottish Labour MPs are a ‘signnificant proportion’ of Unionists, therefore the use of the plural “their” means a significant proportion of Unionists are – by their own admission – clearly guilty of being anti-Scottish.

No one but Michael Kelly said what he said. Using extremist based fallacious logic, Wingsy conflates that Kelly’s belief is analagous to a “significant proportion” of Unionists?!

Any lawyer worth his salt would have realised the truth behind the alleged SPT ban was in fact entrenched in the 1986 Local Government Act. But hey ho, why let the facts get in the way of a conspiracy theory.

Any lawyer worth his salt would have realised the truth behind the alleged SPT ban was in fact entrenched in the 1986 Local Government Act. But hey ho, why let the ‘facts’ get in the way of a conspiracy theory.

Wings endorsers, acolytes, donators readers and supporters, often claim on social media that opponents frequently attack the man but cannot touch his ‘cited’ and ‘sourced’ facts.

It’s this type of risible claim which ensures that no one with half a sceptical brain can actually stop laughing long enough to realise the potential threat posed by Wings and his legions of fervered agentura.

The flip side of such sweeping generalisations is the real and present danger lurking underneath the surface of virtually every Wings post.

For Nationalism to work, it needs a common, readily identifiable enemy to vilify, castigate and ‘other’. In Wings case it is the ‘cornered rats’ of the media and the contemptible “anti-Scots” Unionists.

Both are readily identified and ‘othered’ as “enemies” of Wingsy’s Nationalist cause and are therefore easily demonised and dehumanised. It’s an example of the site’s “merciless contempt” for its perceived enemies.

Of course, within reason, Wingsy can say what he wants. His brand of low-level, distasteful and repugnant hate speech has been droning on for some time now and has been gaining ever more support amongst the desperate and the Nationalist minded.

Some of his infantile rages may even have a spark of truth in them. Much more important for supporters, neutrals and opponents alike is to understand the fundamental philosophy driving the agenda of the man behind it.

Campbell wants opponents to hate him. He’s openly stated as such. He zealously reciprocates the hate. The success of his website owes a great deal to that basic truism. It’s why much of the ‘robust polemic’ of the site can be considered hate speech.

Here’s a reminder of a bona fide Campbell quote:

“It’s not enough just not to care what idiots think. I actively want idiots to hate me. I want the battle lines clearly drawn, and I don’t want fuckwits on my side.”

There’s no link to this quote, Campbell closed down the discussion Forum from where it orginates. But the action proves, if nothing else, that he’s fully aware of the potential damage the Forum could cause him – some of his statments on rape victims, for example, were deleted way before AhDinnaeKen got the chance to look at them.

Once you understand Wingsy’s basic philosophical hate based agenda, it becomes easier to see the subtext behind the motivation of the site.

As AhDinnaeKen outlined in our* last post, Wingsy’s trying his damnedest to incite some kind of low level street violence within the indy debate.

He recently posted yet another blog, complete with video, of an alleged SDL member haranguing Yes campaigners in an aggressive, deeply unpleasant and disturbing manner.

Such footage is mana from heaven for a hate-preacher like Cambpell. The SNP along with high-profile hangers on like Aamer Anwar – to be safe from some of the less savoury accusations raised against Nationalism – need to distance themselves from this site.

Otherwise they will be tainted by association with the repugnant and distasteful beliefs of diminutive demagogue, Stuart Campbell.

And that would be unfortunate – for everyone involved.

The belief was already there. The Panelbase poll merely provided the figures to hang the shameful accusation on the Unionists.

As the above demonstrates, the ‘anti-Scots’ belief was already there with Wingsy. The Panelbase poll merely provided the figures to reinforce the incitefully shameful accusation. Lies, damned lies and statistics etc. Weel din Wingsy sark! Yer a hate-preacher right enough.



Filed under Media, Newspeak, Wangs Watch

13 responses to “Unionists accused of being “anti-Scots” by SNP endorsed website

  1. jay 2209

    I’ve argued with a few Yes supporters on the merits of Wings over Scotland. They can’t see that the guy is a loony entrenched in a Bath back bedroom online 24-7. According to them he shines a light on the bias in the Scottish media that is preventing Scots see that Scotland is mega rich and being economically exploited by England. When I mention his coverage of 9-11, rape victims and Hillsborough this is written off as tounge in cheek. Last week Wingsy ran up a spreadsheet (in which some of the columns didn’t even sum) showing how in every year since the Twenties most of Scotland’s generated revenue is spent outside Scotland. New poll out today shows no lead back to 10%. With yes down one since the last poll. Blair Jenkins says everything still moving in Yes direction and Yes def within grasp. Yes 37% no 47%. Don’t knows (or should that be don’t cares) at 18%. So yes Scotland have at best added 4 or 5 % onto The core Yes support that’s always been there. Great going. Some headlines in recent days from the no camp have been a bit Ott with Robertsons apocalypse and the £200 rise in energy bills. However Robertson spoke at a UN meeting, Salmond when also in New York this week could only get the platform of Glasgow Caledonians New York campus. I wonder how much was spent by the entourage on Wine, haggis, trews, pillows and piano players? Plus Moan’s white Whine of course. What will scottish politics be like after 18 sept?

  2. Leaving aside the Michael Kelly dimension, I would imagine that the near one in five No voters who think Scotland would be treated worse in the event of a No vote are voting No on the basis that a Yes vote would be even worse for Scotland.

    Thus in effect they think the whole IndyRef process can only be bad for Scotland, but No is the lesser of two evils, even assuming Scotland is treated worse by Westminster – whatever precisely ‘worse’ means – as a result.

    Wings’ conclusion that the near one in five are ‘anti-Scottish’ is thus a bit of a non sequitur.

    • Indeed

      You only have to take a look at the onanistic navel gazing of the tweets at the bottom of this page.

      The post-18th Sep choice appears to be worse or worser.

      With the prognosis completely interchangeable no matter the result.

      Still, we’ll be that little bit less at ease with ourselves.

      That will suit the Wingsy brigade element of the debate.


  3. Dear Longshanker

    “It’s not enough just not to care what idiots think. I actively want idiots to hate me. I want the battle lines clearly drawn, and I don’t want fuckwits on my side.”

    I think he doesn’t have a choice regarding “fuckwits on my side”.

    Perhaps he can tell us all how he would remove them.

    In some cases, it seems to be me that they are embedded, I draw on my previous experience of activism in the SNP for that qualified statement.

    Yours sincerely

    George Laird
    The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

  4. Major Disaster

    More on the ‘Rev’ some interesting answers, keep up the good work!



    Do you think there are such things as national characteristics? As in, you know, “the English are reserved and polite” or “Americans are thick”, or are they just a slightly more subtle form of racial stereotyping?

    I think there are, so long as you’re prepared to accept that they’re *massive* generalisations. It’s pretty undeniable that, if you take an entire race as a single entity, people of various nations behave in some fairly distinctive ways, which are demonstrated by the governments they elect, the religions they follow, the average IQ they possess, and so on and so forth.

    Whether there’s any merit or point in boiling down an entire race of individuals (and smaller groups) to a single massively-generalised entity is another question entirely.

    Would you move back to Scotland if it become independent? If not, would it make you more likely to do so?

    It would definitely make me much more likely to do so, though obviously after 20 years living in Bath there would be many personal issues to consider too.

  5. Janet Harrison

    Oh Dear. As a retiree from England I came across but your blog by accident. Your articles are so wrong on so many points. I would suspect you would not listen to any criticism anyway. They are correct, there are more nutters out than in.

  6. Oh dear. As a blogger from Scotlandl, it’s only common courtesy to be told why your “articles are so wrong” that it deserves being subjected to such a limp and unjustified ad hominem.

    A retiree, no matter where they came from, should be able to do better?


  7. David Nelson

    I’m not particularly against independence – in fact I’ve voted for the SNP in the past (though I’ll probably vote No in the referendum). Every Yes supporter I know personally is a completely reasonable, normal person who simply thinks voting Yes is the best thing for the country. We’re adults, we discuss it in the pub, I respect them and they respect those of us who are thinking of voting No. We’re all Scottish at the end of the day and disagreeing over a niche political opinion isn’t particularly important in the grand scheme of things.

    Wings Over Scotland really has nothing to do with ordinary Yes supporters. It’s got more in common with a religious movement than a political one. They actively cultivate a bunker mentality where the entirety of mainstream society is perceived to be attacking them: this goes for almost every mainstream media organisation, political party, politician, think tank and academic outside of the few who are overtly pro-independence. It’s exactly the same tactic used by fringe religious groups, because when you portray yourself as being attacked by society at large it strengthens the cohesion of those who are already inside the group.

    So when such “believers” read an anti-independence article, or have their opinions questioned by an outsider, they can safely ignore it and log on to Wings Over Scotland to find out the “real story”. Most of the time this will consist of a complete misunderstanding of the topic at stake – he’s a video games journalist who routinely makes amateurish errors in analysing complex political and economic issues – but that doesn’t matter. When you’ve relentlessly hammered the line that everyone outside of the clique is a biased, Scotland-hating, unionist (or at best a naive idiot) he can provide the most amateurish analysis going.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think the average person who shares a Wings Over Scotland article or logs on to the site infrequently buys into this gibberish. He churns out so much polemical nonsense that it’s bound to chime with Yes supporters’ views sooner or later. The cliquish aspect to it is really only subscribed to by a minority, but that’s clearly his raison d’etre and what he’s attempting to do.

    The fact that it’s an absolutely appalling way to try and win over floating voters seems to be completely lost on him. You don’t win reasonable normal people over with quasi-conspiracy theories, self-righteous gibberish and smear attacks on anyone who sticks their head above the parapet on the other side. What he does is a very effective way of preaching to the converted, but it completely alienates those in the centre of public opinion – those with doubts, those who see independence as having pros and cons, those with any sort of academic background in politics or economics, etc.

    God knows how he’s going to react if (as is likely) we choose to vote No – ironically he’s done more to sow divisions between Scots than most over the last couple of years.

  8. Political Tourist

    Is Michael Kelly really a unionist?
    I thought he was some of Irish Nationalist.
    Didn’t he used to own Celtic FC?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s