Response to JK Rowling's claims that SNP are anti-English

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/do-not-judge-an-entire-political-party-by-the-activities-of-a-few-extremists.129525287

[lord bunberry]

The issue is more that JK Rowling is anti SNP. During the referendum campaign I thought it was refreshing that things didn't descend into to anti English rhetoric.

[steakbake]

Bunberry calls it for me: prominent Labour backer in lazy SNP attack shocker.

No doubt there are some absolute dicks on the Yes side but I think there's just as much poison on the no side. You've got anti English people for sure, but it's not a one way street.

That is the nature of social media, where people can have an opinion and within seconds, troll a celeb or push it out in the internet. It's just the way it is but to use them to attack a particular proposition is just a slightly more refined version of accusing everyone of being Nazis, as Godwin's law tells us.

[Scouse Hibee]

The issue is more that JK Rowling is anti SNP. During the referendum campaign I thought it was refreshing that things didn't descend into to anti English rhetoric.

Did they not?

[Hibbyradge]

Did they not?

I wasn't aware of any anti-English comments and I am very sensitive to them.

They certainly didn't reach the levels that the anti-Scottish rhetoric reached in the GE.

[Stonewall]

I wasn't aware of any anti-English comments and I am very sensitive to them.

They certainly didn't reach the levels that the anti-Scottish rhetoric reached in the GE.

My English colleague had comments directed at her a couple of times in the run up to the referendum. Nothing serious but uncalled for and she was taken aback and a little upset.

[Just Alf]

I had a weird discussion with one of my English colleagues at the time where he was adamant that we (the Scots) were "sponging jock *******s" and really did believe that the whole SNP purpose in life was to do down "the English" , along with certain other people in more public positions he also likened the SNP to Nazi's ..... He truly couldn't believe I was pro independence when I told him as he'd always thought I wasn't racist.

We've got over it and he's a bit more enlightened now but I guess I'm
Trying to say there's ***** in all political parties etc.... Not fair to say (in his case) that all of Labour is like that :agree:

[ronaldo7]

Interesting. Seems JK likes to troll quite a bit.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/06/23/troll-hunter/

[Purple & Green]

My English colleague had comments directed at her a couple of times in the run up to the referendum. Nothing serious but uncalled for and she was taken aback and a little upset.

By the snp? I don't think so.

Some scots people might express anti English sentiments, just as some English people express anti Scottish sentiments.

Let's not confuse that with the Snp, who I've never heard express an anti English sentiment but have expressed plenty of pro Scotland ones.

I don't get rowlings agenda, myself.

[Purple & Green]

Having read the article, it seems better together and labour have learned nothing. As I've said elsewhere as a fundamental Scottish nationalist it worries me that there is no effective opposition to the snp.

[lord bunberry]

Did they not?
Not the main stream yes campaign. There may have been a few idiots on the fringes of things, but the yes campaign was fought on the positives of an independent Scotland.

[Pretty Boy]

Not the main stream yes campaign. There may have been a few idiots on the fringes of things, but the yes campaign was fought on the positives of an independent Scotland.

Agreed.

I remember not long before the referendum campaign started Salmond et all launched quite an aggressive 'We love England' PR campaign.

He used the Hugo Young lecture of 2012 to describe himself as an 'Anglophile' and talked up the benefits of an independent Scotland for England.

[speedy_gonzales]

Interesting. Seems JK likes to troll quite a bit.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/06/23/troll-hunter/

I'm not keen on the 'editorials' you get on sites like these and Wings over Scotland, perhaps it's because whilst trying to debate a reasoned point they seem to either either deliberately pull the pin and blindly chuck the grenade or they pull the pin and it drops to their feet.

This latest article By Stewart Bremner appears to be the latter;

"I tweeted the graphic with these words: ‘I am sick to my back teeth of the super rich using their wealth to buy ‘democracy’ that suits only their prejudices’, referring to the author’s donation of £1m to the No campaign. Her justification for this act, published in the Telegraph, again flew counter to my experience on the ground. However my main point here is that I believe allowing a single person, or indeed corporation, to directly influence the running of a country by using their wealth in this manner is counter to democracy. Our society is run by and for the super rich. As long as politics is bought and paid for by them, this will always be the case. No matter how altruistic the motivation, there is no justification for any single entity being allowed such excess of influence."

Then we have the case of the Euromillion winner from Ayrshire, whilst it may be argued their motivation WAS altruistic, donating £3mill to the SNP and £3.5mill to the YES campaign (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/13/euromillions-lottery-winners-donate-snp) is surely just as 'counter to democracy', perhaps 6.5 times worse!

[Just Alf]

Not the main stream yes campaign. There may have been a few idiots on the fringes of things, but the yes campaign was fought on the positives of an independent Scotland.

Totally agree

We all need to remember, there will always be idiots etc in all walks of life and of different persuasions..... Doesn't mean their core argent isn't worth supporting, whether you'd agree with it or diametrically oppose it.

[Just Alf]

I'm not keen on the 'editorials' you get on sites like these and Wings over Scotland, perhaps it's because whilst trying to debate a reasoned point they seem to either either deliberately pull the pin and blindly chuck the grenade or they pull the pin and it drops to their feet.

This latest article By Stewart Bremner appears to be the latter;

"I tweeted the graphic with these words: ‘I am sick to my back teeth of the super rich using their wealth to buy ‘democracy’ that suits only their prejudices’, referring to the author’s donation of £1m to the No campaign. Her justification for this act, published in the Telegraph, again flew counter to my experience on the ground. However my main point here is that I believe allowing a single person, or indeed corporation, to directly influence the running of a country by using their wealth in this manner is counter to democracy. Our society is run by and for the super rich. As long as politics is bought and paid for by them, this will always be the case. No matter how altruistic the motivation, there is no justification for any single entity being allowed such excess of influence."

Then we have the case of the Euromillion winner from Ayrshire, whilst it may be argued their motivation WAS altruistic, donating £3mill to the SNP and £3.5mill to the YES campaign (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/13/euromillions-lottery-winners-donate-snp) is surely just as 'counter to democracy', perhaps 6.5 times worse!

I think I know where you're coming from and in principle I'd agree, couple of points tho.... The electoral commission has just published a report stating the financing was pretty level (yes a few grand difference I think) and the couple who won the lottery have, to my knowledge at least, not used their higher profile to broadcast any messages supporting their views (apologies if I've missed it)

[Scouse Hibee]

Not the main stream yes campaign. There may have been a few idiots on the fringes of things, but the yes campaign was fought on the positives of an independent Scotland.

Fair enough.

[ronaldo7]

I'm not keen on the 'editorials' you get on sites like these and Wings over Scotland, perhaps it's because whilst trying to debate a reasoned point they seem to either either deliberately pull the pin and blindly chuck the grenade or they pull the pin and it drops to their feet.

This latest article By Stewart Bremner appears to be the latter;

"I tweeted the graphic with these words: ‘I am sick to my back teeth of the super rich using their wealth to buy ‘democracy’ that suits only their prejudices’, referring to the author’s donation of £1m to the No campaign. Her justification for this act, published in the Telegraph, again flew counter to my experience on the ground. However my main point here is that I believe allowing a single person, or indeed corporation, to directly influence the running of a country by using their wealth in this manner is counter to democracy. Our society is run by and for the super rich. As long as politics is bought and paid for by them, this will always be the case. No matter how altruistic the motivation, there is no justification for any single entity being allowed such excess of influence."

Then we have the case of the Euromillion winner from Ayrshire, whilst it may be argued their motivation WAS altruistic, donating £3mill to the SNP and £3.5mill to the YES campaign (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/13/euromillions-lottery-winners-donate-snp) is surely just as 'counter to democracy', perhaps 6.5 times worse!

I think he missed a trick by not mentioning the Weir's, however I think his point was that they're not Trolling people long after the referendum's finished.

I think he was annoyed that she'd done a screengrab of his tweet, then forwarded to her thousands of followers, she then blocked him so he couldn't debate with her, and awaited the grenades to get thrown by her followers.

It's just not cricket is it, but then the world of Twitter seldom is.