Eddie Barnes - Getting nasty
Labour MP Tom Harris has kicked up a stink on his always interesting blog by referring to the SNP conference in Inverness as "a hate-fest". He also declares that the SNP is "the nasty party" of Scottish politics, pointing to "the poison" which drips from the keyboards of Scotland's army of anonymous 'cybernats'.
Certainly, there were a few incidents at the conference which will give succour to those who feel nationalism is animated by "hate". Most people picked up on the comments by Plaid Cymru's Helen Jones, who described Gordon Brown as "a sorry excuse for a Scotsman" before asking "do you ever as a nation wonder what you will do with the likes of him after independence?" But as someone who spent three days in Inverness, I would say that the tone of the conference was basically very similar to those which I attended in Brighton and Manchester this year. In other words, for a few days, lots of active, interested, interesting people all got together to listen, talk and drink too much. Rather than a hate fest, Labour should be considering the more worrying reality- for them- that the SNP conference has become a venue to do business. Inverness was filled not with much fierce fist-pumping but rather with public affairs consultants and lobbyists all clammering for their few minutes chat with SNP Ministers.
While Tom concedes that the modern SNP may have changed, he still feels able to conclude that they are a 'nasty party' because of the undoubtedly unpleasant missives written by some of Scotland's 'cybernats'. But can we conclude that the 'poison' which leaks from their pens is representative of the party as a whole (or, indeed, even among those Nationalists who blog)? Or is it just a case of a few kids who don't sleep enough?
Answers on a postcard, please.
Certainly, there were a few incidents at the conference which will give succour to those who feel nationalism is animated by "hate". Most people picked up on the comments by Plaid Cymru's Helen Jones, who described Gordon Brown as "a sorry excuse for a Scotsman" before asking "do you ever as a nation wonder what you will do with the likes of him after independence?" But as someone who spent three days in Inverness, I would say that the tone of the conference was basically very similar to those which I attended in Brighton and Manchester this year. In other words, for a few days, lots of active, interested, interesting people all got together to listen, talk and drink too much. Rather than a hate fest, Labour should be considering the more worrying reality- for them- that the SNP conference has become a venue to do business. Inverness was filled not with much fierce fist-pumping but rather with public affairs consultants and lobbyists all clammering for their few minutes chat with SNP Ministers.
While Tom concedes that the modern SNP may have changed, he still feels able to conclude that they are a 'nasty party' because of the undoubtedly unpleasant missives written by some of Scotland's 'cybernats'. But can we conclude that the 'poison' which leaks from their pens is representative of the party as a whole (or, indeed, even among those Nationalists who blog)? Or is it just a case of a few kids who don't sleep enough?
Answers on a postcard, please.
Labels: bloggers, Eddie Barnes, SNP, Tom Harris
posted by Administrator at
16:30
9 Comments:
Considering the fact that most of the extremist comments (which I am personally convinced are actually made by political opponents of the SNP), continued at much the same level both before, during, and after the recent SNP Conference, then I suggest that Mr Harris has not one iota of evidence whatsoever to suggest that the SNP promote a hate-fest, or have anything to do with the more vile comments that can be read from time to time on here. To state the bleedin' obvious if they were SNP activists making these posts, they wouldn't have been around to post them would they? They'd have been at the Conference.
But it's always a useful stick to beat the SNP with, which is why I think many of them are made deliberately to achieve that precise effect.
Eddie,
This is perhaps the most balanced and potentially pro-SNP piece written on this blog!
But seriously, you make a good point. Cybernats have - justifiably - a bad name. But they should not be confused with the suit-wearing, conference-attending Nat activists, for whom their bile is a constant source of irritation.
Tom Harris's post is nothing short of the negative campaigning we've come to expect when the SNP do something positive. I'd like to think we expected better from the like, but having read his blog for a long time, I suspect the correct thing to do is shrug my shoulders.
...the undoubtedly unpleasant missives written by some of Scotland's 'cybernats'. But can we conclude that the 'poison' which leaks from their pens is representative of the party as a whole (or, indeed, even among those Nationalists who blog)? Or is it just a case of a few kids who don't sleep enough?
Strangely enough I've been posting on blogs and newspaper sites for years and I can't actually recall seeing a "cybernat" leaking "poison".
In fact if you were to ask me to find an example and link to it then I don't think I could find one.
The received wisdom that there are "cybernats" out there who leak "poison" is often written about but if you're going to make it more than received wisdom and turn it into an accepted fact then you're going to have to provide us with a few examples Eddie.
It's an interesting use of language. Unionist posters are never called "cyberunis" and they are never accused of leaking "poison".
The use of "Cybernats" as a description for nationalist posters is a way of making unionism the default or natural state of posters and marking nationalist posters as the outsiders.
All you have to do is look at James Mitchell's recent authoritative study of the SNP membership to see that online postings attributed to 'cybernats' are totally unrepresentative of the party, and indeed its electorate, at large.
This appears to be a re-working of a previous article by David Maddox.
Does a serious journalist believe that only "nats" leak poison onto the Scotsmans/other newspaper sites and does a serious journalist not realise that anyone can claim to be a "nat" and post accordingly and then under another name profess to be shocked and horrified? I believe it is known as the Labour spin-doctor syndrome.
To be honest the most vile comment I ever read on any site was from an established unionist supporter calling him/herself Highland Mighty and, on occasion, British Pride.
As an outsider, I have been startled by the bile spewed by unionists. Yes, they then turn around and accuse the "cybernats" of doing the same. The very use of such a demeaning term is suspect.
How many times have I seen not just nationalist but frankly Scots in general referred to on blogs all the way from politicalbetting to Bran Taylor's Blog to ... well, a number of others in the most insulting terms imaginable. Occasionally, but not all that often, that is turned around.
I had lurked on Scottish political blogs for a while because I own a home in Scotland and spend time there on business although I'm an American. When the al-Megrahi affair started, I began posting because I objected so strongly to the picture that was being painted of American opinions. Well, you know starting to post on blogs is easier than stopping. :-)
But the abuse that is pointed toward Scots, particularly nationalists, is startling. I look at it and think, good lord, no wonder a lot of them want out of the union with that coming at them.
Just an American's observations for what they may (or may not) be worth.
There is of course also the theory that Johnston Press itself is complicit in allowing extremist posts to be made to encourage very long threads as a sales pitch for their on-line advertising.
Over to you Scotsman.
I for one am not bothered about the term "cybernat" as it IS a fair description of me; I'm not a leaflet pushing activist who attends conferences.
I agree with Brownlie, the most bile seems to come from the "Unionistas"(another label)and the mentally disturbed individual who managed to get "sphincter" on the Scotsman's list of naughty words.
Eddie,
Why don't you get your feet off the desk, whilst David Maddox makes your coffee, and place your fingers on your key-board and answer some of the points made in response to your articles.
What's the bloody point of posting on a blog and then ignoring comments. Whilst a number may be nonsense, there are valid comments that would welcome your view-point.
Post a Comment
<< Home