Wings Harassment

[aaid]

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

I can see why it might annoy people, i don't really give a shit if it annoys people TBH. Just because it annoys folk, that doesn't mean it's not right though.

And in one line, exactly what Wings' attitude to twitter is.

[giblet]

I'm a fully paid up member of the WoS fan club.

he is a nippy, arrogant , but in terms of holding the Scottish media to account, there is no equal.  We are in phoney war territory just now, and he isnt going to persuade many switching voters in his own. Journos hate him, but in fairness they defended him during the episode with the London journo that potentially has led to this point.  

You just have to ask yourself if the No camp would love for him to be taken off the air, its obvious they would.  I think going after Dugdale was a wrong move though as he could have done far more damage to Scottish Labour than giving them a free shot at goal to portray themselves as the villain.

On a bigger scale, the Yes camp seem to be tying themselves up in knots as to trying to keep everyone down the same message.  Not everyone who wants Indy wants some kind of left wing panacea.  Yes has to appeal to the masses with different strands arguing their case to their section of society.   

 

[Parklife]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

And in one line, exactly what Wings' attitude to twitter is.

come on, you're smarter than that comment. 

[ParisInAKilt]

It's a shame he wasn't able to seperate his personality and twitter comments from WOS because as many have said, it was a great resource for debunking many of the lies and half truths from the mainstream media during the referendum. 

In saying that, WOS can still play a role if and when the next referendum comes. 

I do wonder about people who claim x and y have put them off supporting independence because of their style or controversial comments, if a guy on a computer in England stops you voting a certain way then maybe nothing well. 

Edited August 23, 2017 by ParisInAKilt

[Toepoke]

1 hour ago, ParisInAKilt said:

I do wonder about people who claim x and y have put them off supporting independence because of their style or controversial comments, if a guy on a computer in England stops you voting a certain way then maybe nothing well. 

Absolutely, it's just a convenient excuse for people.

 

[EddardStark]

The guy comes across as a total roaster. That said there are a few on the unionist side as well. Both represent the extremes of the debate and in my view have little influence of the persuading the critical mass to change their minds. I personally changed my mind after the EU referendum for a range of reasons. 

[thplinth]

Was trying to work out the weird Reverend thing and found this article where he discusses his purpose in setting up wings and also his views on Hillsborough. 

Quote

 

The 46-year-old is also a long-term supporter of Scottish independence, but the issue only became pressing for him when the SNP's landslide Holyrood victory in 2011 made a referendum a certainty.

Wings, known for its abrasive take on Scottish politics - one Tory MSP was described as "fat troughing scum" - was started six months after Alex Salmond's historic victory.

"I was looking around for Scottish politics websites to follow ... and they weren't doing the job," he explains, sitting in a friend's house in Keynsham, outside Bath. "It became fairly rapidly obvious that nobody was doing the thing that I thought needed to be done."

Other than giving readers what he describes as the "facts" about independence, Wings also attempts to shine a light on newspapers' alleged bias.

In a podcast interview last year, Campbell said he wanted to "shame" the mainstream press and ensure newspapers did their job in a "more even-handed way".

Does he think newspapers have a duty to be even-handed? "No is the short answer. They don't have a duty to. I think they should be."

Newspaper stories, I say, are required to be accurate, not even-handed. Surely you are asking something of newspapers that they were never set up to deliver?

"They are perfectly at liberty to do that [not being even-handed] but if they're going to do that then they should expect that we will highlight that." Would he be sad if the Daily Mail closed? "No." How about The Scotsman? "No."

Like Guido Fawkes and the US-based Drudge report, Wings is an internet phenomenon: on top of 4.5 million page views, 250,000 unique users visit the site every month. Campbell works around 14 hours a day on the site and is the poster boy for a certain type of online independence campaigner.

And yet, Yes Scotland - the official campaign group for independence -won't touch Wings with a barge pole. Yes recently ordered a local group to stop distributing leaflets that endorsed the website.

A senior Yes figure told the Sunday Herald that the reason for this distance can be summed up in one word: Hillsborough.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13170835._The_bottom_line_is_I_don_t_particularly_care_if_people_don_t_want_to_be_associated_with_us_/

I tend to agree with him (not on Hillsborough although I think his point is perhaps being twisted on that) that his work for yes and his personal views on other events are not connected. 

He is just a guy (although not an ordinary one) and in his stated goals above he has excelled. He really has. That is why they hate him so much and use every dirty trick to try to silence him or make his site taboo. I am very suspicious of anyone who states they are pro YES but cannot see the huge value of his contribution. He is relentless, tireless and provided a massive resource that really was not out there until he did it. It was actually a very bad sign that he stood out so much for providing this fact checking and debunking service during the campaigns. Where was the official YES campaign? They were pathetic and soft and weak looking back. Campbell took the fight to the media while Salmond thought he could reason with them. This guy actually nailed some balls onto the YES campaign whether they liked it or not but it was not nearly enough... he is just a guy! But he has to now be this perfect entity or he might turn off some wishy washy prihck... who gives a fhuck about those kents. Any whank swayed by one mans personality is full of shite anyway.

Funnily enough I was always put off by the Reverend title. Starting to like him a lot more now especially after reading this thread.

 

[hampden_loon2878]

57 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Was trying to work out the weird Reverend thing and found this article where he discusses his purpose in setting up wings and also his views on Hillsborough. 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13170835._The_bottom_line_is_I_don_t_particularly_care_if_people_don_t_want_to_be_associated_with_us_/

I tend to agree with him (not on Hillsborough although I think his point is perhaps being twisted on that) that his work for yes and his personal views on other events are not connected. 

He is just a guy (although not an ordinary one) and in his stated goals above he has excelled. He really has. That is why they hate him so much and use every dirty trick to try to silence him or make his site taboo. I am very suspicious of anyone who states they are pro YES but cannot see the huge value of his contribution. He is relentless, tireless and provided a massive resource that really was not out there until he did it. It was actually a very bad sign that he stood out so much for providing this fact checking and debunking service during the campaigns. Where was the official YES campaign? They were pathetic and soft and weak looking back. Campbell took the fight to the media while Salmond thought he could reason with them. This guy actually nailed some balls onto the YES campaign whether they liked it or not but it was not nearly enough... he is just a guy! But he has to now be this perfect entity or he might turn off some wishy washy prihck... who gives a fhuck about those kents. Any whank swayed by one mans personality is full of shite anyway.

Funnily enough I was always put off by the Reverend title. Starting to like him a lot more now especially after reading this thread.

 

I agree with you pretty much on all the abovr,,i don't have twitter so maybe i miss a lot of his more colourful moments.. 

[aaid]

2 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

I agree with you pretty much on all the abovr,,i don't have twitter so maybe i miss a lot of his more colourful moments.. 

Compared to some of the abuse on Twitter, death and rape threats, racist, sectarian etc., he's actually pretty mild.   I don't think he's ever threatened anyone - outwith legal "threats".  It mostly involves telling people to eff-off and various other insults associated with being stupid.

On the Yes side, it seems to be mainly the Greens and RISE fringe that have a problem with him and I think that's mutual. 

[hampden_loon2878]

8 minutes ago, aaid said:

Compared to some of the abuse on Twitter, death and rape threats, racist, sectarian etc., he's actually pretty mild.   I don't think he's ever threatened anyone - outwith legal "threats".  It mostly involves telling people to eff-off and various other insults associated with being stupid.

On the Yes side, it seems to be mainly the Greens and RISE fringe that have a problem with him and I think that's mutual. 

exactly it does not add up, thats why i thought maybe i had missed some of his shenanigans on twitter.I dare say its more just a smear project, more for show than anything, a bit like the Michelle Thomson carry on,that worked a treat fot the unionists so may be more of the same  

[TDYER63]

I only read the stuff that is sent to me so am perhaps not the best person to make a balanced judgement on him.

However to my mind we are in a position where we have entrenched views on both sides where most of the emotions lie. 

The undecides are more pragmatic and, if they genuinely are willing to listen, are looking for evidence to convince them , or indeed to debunk what the media and Uk Government are telling them. 

If the vast majority of what he is saying is true then a pragmatic person will overlook the emotion, and if they are looking at this in a balanced way, they will see there is as much vitriol from the other side. 

At the end of the day for these people its the facts that count. I am not convinced he is a liability to the Yes campaign. 

[ParisInAKilt]

4 hours ago, EddardStark said:

The guy comes across as a total roaster. That said there are a few on the unionist side as well. Both represent the extremes of the debate and in my view have little influence of the persuading the critical mass to change their minds. I personally changed my mind after the EU referendum for a range of reasons. 

In terms of politics how does WOS represent the extreme side of independence?

[aaid]

6 hours ago, EddardStark said:

The guy comes across as a total roaster. That said there are a few on the unionist side as well. Both represent the extremes of the debate and in my view have little influence of the persuading the critical mass to change their minds. I personally changed my mind after the EU referendum for a range of reasons. 

While there's no doubt he can be abusive, his political views are far from being on the extreme end of the spectrum, hence why any criticism from the Yes side tends to gpcome from the Green and RISE camp.

I'd also say the Wee Blue Book had a huge impact in 2014 with undecided voters. 

[Auld_Reekie]

53 minutes ago, aaid said:

I'd also say the Wee Blue Book had a huge impact in 2014 with undecided voters. 

Is anyone actually doubting his influence in 2014? I think most folk happily acknowledge his influence?

The question is whether he can maintain that influence and more importantly, will his positive influence be more influential than any negative influence. He panders to his audience IMO, but it's the 55% (or rather middle 20% or so), we need to be targeting.

[aaid]

2 minutes ago, Auld_Reekie said:

Is anyone actually doubting his influence in 2014? I think most folk happily acknowledge his influence?

The question is whether he can maintain that influence and more importantly, will his positive influence be more influential than any negative influence. He panders to his audience IMO, but it's the 55% (or rather middle 20% or so), we need to be targeting.

That middle 20% are probably not even thinking about anything remotely to do with independence and won't do until there's another referendum.    At this point, everyone is really speaking to their own audience. 

[Haggis_trap]

28 minutes ago, aaid said:

That middle 20% are probably not even thinking about anything remotely to do with independence and won't do until there's another referendum.    At this point, everyone is really speaking to their own audience. 

Exactly - the middle 20% of undecided voters (assuming there is such a thing) will be swung by brexit outcome.
If it is economic catastrophe for UK then Scotland might get its independence.
Ironically this is where I disagree with WoS most - personally I am much more pro EU than he is.

FWIW : I am 100% in favour of independence but would describe my politics as more liberal than left wing.
IMHO : What damages the case for independence is nailing the YES vote together with too much left / socialist (or even EU) ideology.
The beauty of independence is we get to decide all this stuff for ourselves as a nation. 
The independence case should be about self determination rather than ideology.
Ironically if you hate the SNP then only way to get rid of them is actually independence ;-)

[Haggis_trap]

Oh yeah : Wings is clearly a church for the converted.
Anyone unionist who argues with him on twitter is clearly also looking for little cyber-banter / trolling themselves.

To my mind they are just as guilty as Stuart Campbell himself.

[ShedTA]

4 hours ago, Haggis_trap said:

Exactly - the middle 20% of undecided voters (assuming there is such a thing) will be swung by brexit outcome.
If it is economic catastrophe for UK then Scotland might get its independence.
Ironically this is where I disagree with WoS most - personally I am much more pro EU than he is.

FWIW : I am 100% in favour of independence but would describe my politics as more liberal than left wing.
IMHO : What damages the case for independence is nailing the YES vote together with too much left / socialist (or even EU) ideology.
The beauty of independence is we get to decide all this stuff for ourselves as a nation. 
The independence case should be about self determination rather than ideology.
Ironically if you hate the SNP then only way to get rid of them is actually independence ;-)

But this is the point. It does my head in when people dismiss Indy because of the snp.  Ffs once we are Indy we get to choose our govt. Not just the snp. 

[Guest BlueGaz]

12 hours ago, ShedTA said:

But this is the point. It does my head in when people dismiss Indy because of the snp.  Ffs once we are Indy we get to choose our govt. Not just the snp. 

That is true Shed - but you have to trust them until then, which is difficult for some.  A very large hard core of Yes supporters, in my opinion, would vote Yes regardless of what we get told by either side (same for No too), they just want to be independent whatever the cost.

Edited August 25, 2017 by BlueGaz

[shaddypeekey]

16 hours ago, Haggis_trap said:

Exactly - the middle 20% of undecided voters (assuming there is such a thing) will be swung by brexit outcome.
If it is economic catastrophe for UK then Scotland might get its independence.
Ironically this is where I disagree with WoS most - personally I am much more pro EU than he is.

FWIW : I am 100% in favour of independence but would describe my politics as more liberal than left wing.
IMHO : What damages the case for independence is nailing the YES vote together with too much left / socialist (or even EU) ideology.
The beauty of independence is we get to decide all this stuff for ourselves as a nation. 
The independence case should be about self determination rather than ideology.
Ironically if you hate the SNP then only way to get rid of them is actually independence ;-)

Hear hear! 

I've been asked in the past "How cold you vote Yes in the Referendum, you're not a SNP supporter"  - I've actually been asked that on more than one occasion. Pisses me off. I'm happy to admit that I have a definite leaning towards Conservatism. but that doesn't mean people of my ilk don't want independence! 

Honestly, if teh Scottish Labour or Conservative parties ditched their strict adherence to Unionism, the SNP would be buggered at the next election.

[Alibi]

1 hour ago, shaddypeekey said:

Hear hear! 

I've been asked in the past "How cold you vote Yes in the Referendum, you're not a SNP supporter"  - I've actually been asked that on more than one occasion. Pisses me off. I'm happy to admit that I have a definite leaning towards Conservatism. but that doesn't mean people of my ilk don't want independence! 

Honestly, if teh Scottish Labour or Conservative parties ditched their strict adherence to Unionism, the SNP would be buggered at the next election.

You have a very valid point there, Paddy.  Independence is the starting point; thereafter we can decide what sort of society and what sort of government we want to have.  I know quite a few Labour supporters who want independence, and there are also I think quite a few pragmatic Tories who also support it - but are not allowed to express that view as Toryism and Unionism are closely linked and manifested as British nationalism which does not really tolerate any variation form the UJ waving model.

[Glasgowmancity]

14 hours ago, ShedTA said:

Ffs once we are Indy we get to choose our govt. Not just the snp. 

Well the Central Belt do

[jockodile]

On 8/24/2017 at 9:56 AM, Toepoke said:

Absolutely, it's just a convenient excuse for people.

 

Totally, lots of people in Scotland deep down just seem to lack self confidence and are thus eager for things to cling to in order to justify their No-ness. Wings caustic style is an example of that, but more often is displayed by the 'not had enough information' brigade.

Gordon's Vow was the gold standard in that.

[ParisInAKilt]

Don't think it's a lack of self confidence but a result of a life time of propaganda. The fact YES got 45.% just shows how bad the UK government is. Embarrassing really that it's gotten this far. 

[ShedTA]

2 hours ago, BlueGaz said:

That is true Shed - but you have to trust them until then, which is difficult for some.  A very large hard core of Yes supporters, in my opinion, would vote Yes regardless of what we get told by either side (same for No too), they just want to be independent whatever the cost.

That's very true Gaz.  I don't like being labelled SNP because I want independence - does my head in. But at the moment the only party backing it is them. post Indy the SNP would no longer have a raison d'etre anyway. I assume they would merge/ morph into another party post Indy ? the N being for National and putting Scotlands interests first - but post indy all political parties up here would do that you would think.