Does this remind you of anyone? Article about Indy zoomers

[Hibbyradge]

Unless my circumstances change sooner then expected, I won't be back up the road in time for the Indyref2, but I think this is what some of us have been trying to say.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17847537.yes-voter-now-sick-tired-side/?ref=ebln

I’m a Yes voter, but I’m now sick and tired of my own side
By Neil Mackay

I WAS speaking to a well-known SNP politician recently, who told me that they thanked God that “most of the zoomers” had stopped coming to their local party meetings.

A “zoomer” is social media slang in Scotland for a political extremist, a conspiracy theorist, a hate-peddler – someone who comes across as downright crazy. They’re Trumpian. They’ve that hardline Brexiteer venom and nastiness.

I’m not an SNP member, but I share the politician’s weariness with some elements of the Yes movement. As an independence supporter, I’m growing steadily sick, and increasingly tired, of the antics of some on my own side.

It seems that every other day now, alienating behaviour from what should be the fringes of the Yes movement becomes the focus of attention, playing into the hands of opponents of independence.

It’s especially frustrating at a time like this, when a hard-right government in Westminster led by Boris Johnson is a gift for those who support independence. Yet, instead of wooing soft Unionists with a smile and a handshake, the Yes movement is seen by some as flag-wrapped, shouting and snarling. It makes no sense.

Increasingly, friends of mine who are No voters say they are coming round to the idea of independence. They’ve no emotional attachment to independence but the madness unfolding at Westminster means they could envisage themselves one day voting for separation. However – and it’s a huge however – they all say they’re not quite there yet, and the issue that puts them off independence the most is the aggression and bullying they associate with the Yes movement.

When you tell them that online Unionist trolls are just as bad, they simply don’t believe you. The experience of Yes supporters may be one of Unionist abuse and bullying, but if you’re a Unionist your experience will be one of bullying and abuse from nationalists. That’s how social media bubbles work.

The bottom line is that soft No voters, who hold the balance of power in any future referendum, are being deterred from shifting their position because of the nastiness of a vocal minority in the Yes movement.

Recently, there’s been a spate of ridiculous and alienating behaviour from some quarters. Jackie Kay, the Makar or national poet, said Scotland’s attitude to race was decades behind England. Kay has a Nigerian father and a Scottish mother. However, with depressing predictability, comments by a woman of colour were written off by white people who won’t accept any criticism of Scotland.

These are the people who see reporting facts as “running down Scotland”. Drug deaths go up. It’s running down Scotland. Trains could be better. It’s running down Scotland. News on employment, or productivity, or pay – whatever it is, if it isn’t celebratory it’s part of a vast conspiracy against Scotland.

You’d be forgiven for wondering: it Scotland’s that perfect, why the push for independence? I want independence as I can see life needs to get better.

This fringe wraps itself in the flag. It gets outraged that Union Jacks are on supermarket packaging not Saltires. If they weren’t doing such damage to the Yes movement it would be comic.

These people are so chippy and thin-skinned, so easily offended, that they are the embodiment of a new type of “Scottish cringe” – their sense of self and their belief in their own country is so fragile anything can threaten it.

A few days ago Nicola Sturgeon had to come to the defence of Janice Forsyth when the online Yes fringe turned its ire on the BBC broadcaster. Forsyth tweeted the literary festival Bloody Scotland a joke about Jimmy Krankie. Some independence supporters assumed it was an insult directed at the First Minister. It wasn’t.

Forsyth was insulted and attacked, as was the BBC. The FM had to put a message out asking people to please leave Forsyth alone.

The pro-independence website Wings Over Scotland has floated setting up its own political party. It seems that a significant minority of Yes supporters see this as a good thing. On social media, the site is known for trolling, abuse and insults.

There’s a deep confusion and hypocrisy here. The people who support the idea of this new political entity have a long history of viciously attacking anyone who suggested voting for any Yes-supporting party, other than the SNP, at previous Scottish elections. A Green vote was heresy. “Both votes SNP” was their line. Now there’s a populist alternative in the offing, a form of Scottish nationalism which suits their aggressive tastes, the mantra of “both votes SNP” doesn’t matter anymore.

The idea that a populist form of nationalism in Scotland will woo much-needed No voters is absurd. The rise of populist nationalism in Scotland will set back every advance so far made.

And this takes us to the crux of the problem – we now have two competing visions of independence. One comes in the form of politicians like Ms Sturgeon and Patrick Harvie of the Greens. It’s considered, pragmatic, non-threatening; it wants to woo opponents. It wants a progressive, fair and equal Scotland, and believes the way to improve the lot of ordinary people is to leave behind the broken Westminster system. The other is Trumpian in nature and thrives on offence rather than persuasion. It wants independence at any cost.

To some extent, you could say of the SNP, “hell mend them”. For years now, the party has allowed this populist fringe to offend and bully. Now the populist fringe is coming for its seats.

The one abiding image of the Yes movement over the last year has been independence marches through towns and cities. The organisation behind the rallies, All Under One Banner, was caught up in internal feuding this summer, which also didn’t help the public image of the Yes movement. But more importantly, the marching doesn’t help garner new voters. Will waving a Saltire ever persuade a single Unionist to back Scottish independence?

Genies don’t go back into bottles. The only way for the broader Yes movement to protect itself from this growing online wing is to speak up. If people don’t speak up then the metastasising populist fringe risks alienating voters who can be wooed and drowning out the voices of the good, decent, majority of independence supporters.


Neil Mackay is Scotland’s Columnist of the Year.

[Hiber-nation]

Yep that sums it up nicely.

[Cataplana]

I started to question what was going on when they had that Nuremberg style procession over the new bridge when it opened

I will still listen to reasoned arguments, but most of the conversations I have with activists these days end up with me politely disengaging.

[JeMeSouviens]

Interesting.

I was thinking of starting a thread: "what's wrong with your own side?"

In some sort of attempt to get us out of the entrenched partisan ruts. But I could only see it quickly disappearing into an entrenched partisan rut. :rolleyes:

Fwiw, the most annoying thing for me about the Yes side is the delusional wishful thinking of the innumerate. But the only thing that would actually put me off voting Yes would be the rise of a genuinely blood-and-soil nationalist populist movement. I know the sentiment is there in the background but it's never struck me as possible that it could amount to anything. This "Wings" party makes me slightly uncomfortable.


ANYWAY, WHAT ABOUT THE ****** CURRENCY ALREADY?

[Geo_1875]

Unless my circumstances change sooner then expected, I won't be back up the road in time for the Indyref2, but I think this is what some of us have been trying to say.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17847537.yes-voter-now-sick-tired-side/?ref=ebln

I’m a Yes voter, but I’m now sick and tired of my own side
By Neil Mackay

I WAS speaking to a well-known SNP politician recently, who told me that they thanked God that “most of the zoomers” had stopped coming to their local party meetings.

A “zoomer” is social media slang in Scotland for a political extremist, a conspiracy theorist, a hate-peddler – someone who comes across as downright crazy. They’re Trumpian. They’ve that hardline Brexiteer venom and nastiness.

I’m not an SNP member, but I share the politician’s weariness with some elements of the Yes movement. As an independence supporter, I’m growing steadily sick, and increasingly tired, of the antics of some on my own side.

It seems that every other day now, alienating behaviour from what should be the fringes of the Yes movement becomes the focus of attention, playing into the hands of opponents of independence.

It’s especially frustrating at a time like this, when a hard-right government in Westminster led by Boris Johnson is a gift for those who support independence. Yet, instead of wooing soft Unionists with a smile and a handshake, the Yes movement is seen by some as flag-wrapped, shouting and snarling. It makes no sense.

Increasingly, friends of mine who are No voters say they are coming round to the idea of independence. They’ve no emotional attachment to independence but the madness unfolding at Westminster means they could envisage themselves one day voting for separation. However – and it’s a huge however – they all say they’re not quite there yet, and the issue that puts them off independence the most is the aggression and bullying they associate with the Yes movement.

When you tell them that online Unionist trolls are just as bad, they simply don’t believe you. The experience of Yes supporters may be one of Unionist abuse and bullying, but if you’re a Unionist your experience will be one of bullying and abuse from nationalists. That’s how social media bubbles work.

The bottom line is that soft No voters, who hold the balance of power in any future referendum, are being deterred from shifting their position because of the nastiness of a vocal minority in the Yes movement.

Recently, there’s been a spate of ridiculous and alienating behaviour from some quarters. Jackie Kay, the Makar or national poet, said Scotland’s attitude to race was decades behind England. Kay has a Nigerian father and a Scottish mother. However, with depressing predictability, comments by a woman of colour were written off by white people who won’t accept any criticism of Scotland.

These are the people who see reporting facts as “running down Scotland”. Drug deaths go up. It’s running down Scotland. Trains could be better. It’s running down Scotland. News on employment, or productivity, or pay – whatever it is, if it isn’t celebratory it’s part of a vast conspiracy against Scotland.

You’d be forgiven for wondering: it Scotland’s that perfect, why the push for independence? I want independence as I can see life needs to get better.

This fringe wraps itself in the flag. It gets outraged that Union Jacks are on supermarket packaging not Saltires. If they weren’t doing such damage to the Yes movement it would be comic.

These people are so chippy and thin-skinned, so easily offended, that they are the embodiment of a new type of “Scottish cringe” – their sense of self and their belief in their own country is so fragile anything can threaten it.

A few days ago Nicola Sturgeon had to come to the defence of Janice Forsyth when the online Yes fringe turned its ire on the BBC broadcaster. Forsyth tweeted the literary festival Bloody Scotland a joke about Jimmy Krankie. Some independence supporters assumed it was an insult directed at the First Minister. It wasn’t.

Forsyth was insulted and attacked, as was the BBC. The FM had to put a message out asking people to please leave Forsyth alone.

The pro-independence website Wings Over Scotland has floated setting up its own political party. It seems that a significant minority of Yes supporters see this as a good thing. On social media, the site is known for trolling, abuse and insults.

There’s a deep confusion and hypocrisy here. The people who support the idea of this new political entity have a long history of viciously attacking anyone who suggested voting for any Yes-supporting party, other than the SNP, at previous Scottish elections. A Green vote was heresy. “Both votes SNP” was their line. Now there’s a populist alternative in the offing, a form of Scottish nationalism which suits their aggressive tastes, the mantra of “both votes SNP” doesn’t matter anymore.

The idea that a populist form of nationalism in Scotland will woo much-needed No voters is absurd. The rise of populist nationalism in Scotland will set back every advance so far made.

And this takes us to the crux of the problem – we now have two competing visions of independence. One comes in the form of politicians like Ms Sturgeon and Patrick Harvie of the Greens. It’s considered, pragmatic, non-threatening; it wants to woo opponents. It wants a progressive, fair and equal Scotland, and believes the way to improve the lot of ordinary people is to leave behind the broken Westminster system. The other is Trumpian in nature and thrives on offence rather than persuasion. It wants independence at any cost.

To some extent, you could say of the SNP, “hell mend them”. For years now, the party has allowed this populist fringe to offend and bully. Now the populist fringe is coming for its seats.

The one abiding image of the Yes movement over the last year has been independence marches through towns and cities. The organisation behind the rallies, All Under One Banner, was caught up in internal feuding this summer, which also didn’t help the public image of the Yes movement. But more importantly, the marching doesn’t help garner new voters. Will waving a Saltire ever persuade a single Unionist to back Scottish independence?

Genies don’t go back into bottles. The only way for the broader Yes movement to protect itself from this growing online wing is to speak up. If people don’t speak up then the metastasising populist fringe risks alienating voters who can be wooed and drowning out the voices of the good, decent, majority of independence supporters.


Neil Mackay is Scotland’s Columnist of the Year.

Neil "I'm An Independence Supporter, But ..." Mackay

[Cataplana]

Neil "I'm An Independence Supporter, But ..." Mackay

What do you mean?

[Smartie]

Neil "I'm An Independence Supporter, But ..." Mackay

This is a pretty harsh comment.

The article is a good one, and contrary to what your post suggests I think it comes from a good place ie "I want independence so much I'm going to look into what we need to do to make it a reality. We need to grow our support base and that will involve convincing soft no voters to come to the party."

I think there are yes voters who revel in the role of losers with a grievance, and would almost prefer to be losers with a grievance than actually be winners with a job to do making independence a success (the same could be said for some within the Labour Party). These people are actually harming the prospects of the thing they purport to be in favour of happening actually happening, and the author is highlighting this fact.

More power to him to do so, even if it is a slightly uncomfortable concept.

[jonty]

Does this remind you of anyone? Article about Indy zoomers
If that's a pop at any hibs fans on the boards, then its a new low for you HR.

[Northernhibee]

This is a pretty harsh comment.

The article is a good one, and contrary to what your post suggests I think it comes from a good place ie "I want independence so much I'm going to look into what we need to do to make it a reality. We need to grow our support base and that will involve convincing soft no voters to come to the party."

I think there are yes voters who revel in the role of losers with a grievance, and would almost prefer to be losers with a grievance than actually be winners with a job to do making independence a success (the same could be said for some within the Labour Party). These people are actually harming the prospects of the thing they purport to be in favour of happening actually happening, and the author is highlighting this fact.

More power to him to do so, even if it is a slightly uncomfortable concept.

I was convinced in a no vote in 2014 as I felt that there was a shared anger amongst the working classes in the north and midlands of England with us up in Scotland in regards to how the NHS, education, welfare state was being treated and felt that standing together to battle the Tories was the way that we defeat it, that in many ways the fact that the Tories were willing to let us have a referendum was in some ways "divide and conquer". There'd be a backlash amongst no voters if we voted yes and we'd end up with the bloody Tories both sides of the border. They'd shaft us, blame it on the independence rather than themselves and we'd be back to square one.

I'd vote yes this time around. I know I wasn't alone in my rationale of thinking that there was more that unified us than divided us but the Brexit vote was a betrayal of that without a shadow of a doubt. "Call Me Dave" succeeded in his second attempt to split the country in two but this time round people fell for it. The fallout from it and the death of democracy along with the far right is, for me, enough for me to be a certain 'yes' next time around.

I used to be a Labour party member but left for the same reason that it took me so long to come around to the other side on independence; the rhetoric of some of the most fevered supporters of it is really offputting. Much as there is with leaving the EU, there would be economic consequences of leaving the UK. Most 'yes' supporters will happily discuss it (much like I openly and warmly discussed my reasons for voting no first time around) but some just see it as an excuse to go into attack mode - I've been called everything from "Tory" to "Traitor" and "quisling" for asking for statistical, factual data to back up some of the claims. I was even told when asking about the potential of a border being set up by the UK government if we couldn't regain entry to the EU (ironic, I know) by one person in a pub that he would "happily man the turrets at Hadrian's Wall to keep those ******* English out".

Those are pretty extreme examples but when you read stories of people getting upset because the new MINI has union jack tail lights and it's potentially offensive to those who do not identify as British it comes across as extremely thin skinned. Scotland has nothing to do with the build of the new MINI (it's made in Oxford) so would they rather if they were driving around with a car with tail lights like the St. Georges cross?

I get on well with people from both sides of the argument; for me it's not quite what side of the argument you are on but how you got there and how you argue it but there are some figures on the 'yes' side that are as unedifying to be on the same side as on the 'no' side. It comes down - for both sides - on agreement, being civil, patient and realising that as long as people have come to their viewpoint for the right reasons they are perfectly entitled to do so and civility should be key.

[degenerated]

This is a pretty harsh comment.

The article is a good one, and contrary to what your post suggests I think it comes from a good place ie "I want independence so much I'm going to look into what we need to do to make it a reality. We need to grow our support base and that will involve convincing soft no voters to come to the party."

I think there are yes voters who revel in the role of losers with a grievance, and would almost prefer to be losers with a grievance than actually be winners with a job to do making independence a success (the same could be said for some within the Labour Party). These people are actually harming the prospects of the thing they purport to be in favour of happening actually happening, and the author is highlighting this fact.

More power to him to do so, even if it is a slightly uncomfortable concept.

Whilst he may have a point, it doesn't mean he has to write the same article after every all under one banner march. I may be wrong, i often am, but I suspect that's what generated what you suggested was a harsh comment.

[The Modfather]

If that's a pop at any hibs fans on the boards, then its a new low for you HR.

To be fair not all posters on here are Hibs fans, some don’t even have an interest in the forum outside of independence related threads on the Holy Ground.

[James310]

If that's a pop at any hibs fans on the boards, then its a new low for you HR.

Really? Compared to some of the stuff I have seen it's pretty tame.

I have no idea what side of the Independence debate you are on but if there was ana article about Unionists Zoomers would you have said it was a new low?

[Smartie]

Whilst he may have a point, it doesn't mean he has to write the same article after every all under one banner march. I may be wrong, i often am, but I suspect that's what generated what you suggested was a harsh comment.

He's not a writer I'm aware of - tbh it is the first time I've read anything from him, so I wasn't aware of his history.

[James310]

To be fair not all posters on here are Hibs fans, some don’t even have an interest in the forum outside of independence related threads on the Holy Ground.

I am definitely not an Indy Zoomer, are you?

[jonty]

Really? Compared to some of the stuff I have seen it's pretty tame.

I have no idea what side of the Independence debate you are on but if there was ana article about Unionists Zoomers would you have said it was a new low?

No because I said hibs fans. :wink:
That, and I expect more from HR.

[jonty]

To be fair not all posters on here are Hibs fans, some don’t even have an interest in the forum outside of independence related threads on the Holy Ground.

That's why i said hibs fans :greengrin. we are, after all, one big happy family.
Calling them out on a dedicated thread is below HRs usual standard.


The rest are just cannon fodder.

[lord bunberry]

That article does have some truths contained within it, but it’s written by an absolute clown who has concentrated solely on bashing the independence movement. He has as he always does tried to tar the vast majority with the lunatic fringe. The journalist who tweeted the jimmy krankie joke knew fine well it was Nicola Sturgeon that was appearing at the event, so if it was a joke it was always going to provoke the response it did.
Im all for weeding out the nutters in the independence movement and I certainly don’t engage in abusing no voters online. The part I agree with him is where he says the way to convince soft no voters is by making a positive case for independence. His comments about Scotland being decades behind England regarding race are laughable and shows how out of touch Jackie Kay must be.
Neil Mackay says he supports independence, but I have serious doubts about that.

[CloudSquall]

The article doesn't say anything that hasn't been said in the previous 5 or so years, a page filler is all it is.

[Hibbyradge]

If that's a pop at any hibs fans on the boards, then its a new low for you HR.

Eh?

Did you read the article?

It's about some people's attitudes surrounding independence and their behaviour.

Are people beyond criticism because they're Hibs supporters? :confused:

Furthermore, they're not my words. They're the article's author's description.

[Fife-Hibee]

Eh?

Did you read the article?

It's about some people's attitudes towards independence and their behaviour.

Are people beyond criticism because they're Hibs supporters? :confused:

Furthermore, they're not my words. They're the article's author's description.

What attitudes and behaviours are that HR?
What's universally unacceptable in this world because HR believes they are?

[marinello59]

By starting the article describing people as zoomers he is straying close to the same sort of behaviour he is attacking. Perhaps he would be better writing about the positive case for independence himself rather than this.

[Fife-Hibee]

By starting the article describing people as zoomers he is straying close to the same sort of behaviour he is attacking. Perhaps he would be better writing about the positive case for independence himself rather than this.

Agreed. Besides, people aren't influenced to change their ways when they're being referred to as 'zoomers'. It just makes the people calling them that seem like zoomers themselves. Which kind of ties into the point I was making on the Owen Jones thread. You don't change peoples politics through name calling and paggers with them out on the streets.

[lapsedhibee]

By starting the article describing people as zoomers he is straying close to the same sort of behaviour he is attacking. Perhaps he would be better writing about the positive case for independence himself rather than this.

Good point, prick. :agree:

[Hibbyradge]

By starting the article describing people as zoomers he is straying close to the same sort of behaviour he is attacking. Perhaps he would be better writing about the positive case for independence himself rather than this.

It's an article criticising unnamed people for the way they behave on social media. Criticism which is well deserved.

The positive case for independence is a different subject.

[Torto7]

Imagine facing a future of hard right government, free trade agreements with the US and still considering independence 'risky'.:faf:

Some folk are just *****bags I'm afraid.

[Northernhibee]

Imagine facing a future of hard right government, free trade agreements with the US and still considering independence 'risky'.:faf:

Some folk are just *****bags I'm afraid.

And that sort of stuff doesn't help the cause one bit. Perfect example.

If people have concerns that are stopping them from voting yes then it's to our advantage to talk through them and explain - patiently, politely - why it's less risky than what we are facing.

Calling them a *****bag just swats them away to vote no again.

[Pretty Boy]

The problem is SOME Yes supporters don't feel they have any obligation to be ambassadors for their cause or to accept a level of responsibilty for either their actions or the outcome of their actions.

It's often the case with those with the zeal of the converted.

[Northernhibee]

The problem is SOME Yes supporters don't feel they have any obligation to be ambassadors for their cause or to accept a level of responsibilty for either their actions or the outcome of their actions.

It's often the case with those with the zeal of the converted.

When I left the Labour party I had so many people telling me how Corbyn was a proper leader, working towards remaining and literally couldn't see anything wrong with him. An opposition leader who neither opposes or leads, yet some still see him as beyond criticism.

Bizarre.

[jonty]

Eh?

Did you read the article?

It's about some people's attitudes surrounding independence and their behaviour.

Are people beyond criticism because they're Hibs supporters? :confused:

Furthermore, they're not my words. They're the article's author's description.

I was commenting on the title "Does this remind you of anyone? Article about Indy zoomers" which is why i only quoted that.
Those were your words, not those from the article.

No one is beyond criticism but if its a dig at other hibs supporters, surely we're above that. Its below the levels of decency we used to have around here, and certainly below the quality of debate we used to have in this forum.


Of course, if its not then great. your previous low holds (whatever that was) for the moment :greengrin

[Mon Dieu4]

If you get thousands of people online on any given subject then there will be a fair few total ********s involved, doesn't matter if it's left/right, yes/no.

They are the vocal minority and shout loudest so it stands out more, the majority of people just want to get on with it without taking things to the extreme.

[Fife-Hibee]

When I left the Labour party I had so many people telling me how Corbyn was a proper leader, working towards remaining and literally couldn't see anything wrong with him. An opposition leader who neither opposes or leads, yet some still see him as beyond criticism.

Bizarre.

Some Hibs fans think Hibs are beyond criticism. Those who generally invest the most time and energy into supporting their side/cause don't want to believe that it's flawed in any kind of way.

When you put so much into something, the last thing you want to hear about it is criticism.

[Pretty Boy]

Some Hibs fans think Hibs are beyond criticism. Those who generally invest the most time and energy into supporting their side/cause don't want to believe that it's flawed in any kind of way.

When you put so much into something, the last thing you want to hear about it is criticism.

Then those people are fools who are destined to fail.

Very few successful ventures succeed with their 1st attempt. It's learning from mistakes, taking criticism on board and adapting accordingly that drives future success.

[jonty]

Then those people are fools who are destined to fail.

Very few successful ventures succeed with their 1st attempt. It's learning from mistakes, taking criticism on board and adapting accordingly that drives future success.

When are we re-branding the Holy Ground and punting half the posters?

[Hibbyradge]

That's why i said hibs fans :greengrin. we are, after all, one big happy family.
Calling them out on a dedicated thread is below HRs usual standard.


The rest are just cannon fodder.

I thought it was a good article because it described exactly the frustration many of us feel when faced with unreasonable rantings of people who are supposed to have the same goal in mind.

I thought that was a subject worth discussing and I called no-one out. If people recognise themselves in his article, that's for them to rationalise. If some people recognise others, then that tells you something too.

I was originally going to title the thread "Remind you of anyone", but I decided that was too clickbaity so I deliberately explained it more fully by adding the author's description.

The description he gives isn't even insulting and compared to some of the vitriol posted on this forum, it's almost a compliment!

I've often found myself almost turning against independence because of the unreasonable attitudes and antagonism I've read on social media. Fortunately, I've always been able to calm down but I'm certain that other folk have been put off altogether.

They're destructive and dangerous to a cause I hold very dearly.

If that's not a Holy Ground issue, I don't know what is.

[Fife-Hibee]

Then those people are fools who are destined to fail.

Very few successful ventures succeed with their 1st attempt. It's learning from mistakes, taking criticism on board and adapting accordingly that drives future success.

They may well be fools. But their protectionism is perfectly natural. If somebody criticized your kids, you'd be set to give them a bloody nose for doing so. We're naturally wired to protect the things we invest in most.

[Hibbyradge]

Of course, if its not then great. your previous low holds (whatever that was) for the moment :greengrin

Yes, I was meaning to ask you about that ..

[Pretty Boy]

When are we re-branding the Holy Ground and punting half the posters?

I'd have to punt myself if I expressed my opinion on what should happen to the Holy Ground publicly.

[ronaldo7]

I'd have to punt myself if I expressed my opinion on what should happen to the Holy Ground publicly.

It's never stopped you in the past. Why so shy?:greengrin

[Northernhibee]

I'd have to punt myself if I expressed my opinion on what should happen to the Holy Ground publicly.

Have you considered ignoring yourself? Apparently that would work a treat too :greengrin

[jonty]

I'd have to punt myself if I expressed my opinion on what should happen to the Holy Ground publicly.

Time for a pint.....

[ronaldo7]

His piece is a dig at AUOB, whom he fell out with a while ago. Some things in the article ring true, and some could be directed at the Unionist zoom bots currently trolling both him and others from the Indy movement.

His dig at AUOB is probably due to the success they're getting with the open and inclusive marches happening throughout Scotland at the moment, and he's feeling excluded.

Next one in Perth on September 7th, but the BIG ONE in Auld Reekie on Saturday October 5th.

[Fife-Hibee]

His piece is a dig at AUOB, whom he fell out with a while ago. Some things in the article ring true, and some could be directed at the Unionist zoom bots currently trolling both him and others from the Indy movement.

His dig at AUOB is probably due to the success they're getting with the open and inclusive marches happening throughout Scotland at the moment, and he's feeling excluded.

Next one in Perth on September 7th, but the BIG ONE in Auld Reekie on Saturday October 5th.

Must admit, i've never actually been to any of the marches. May decide to go along to the one in October just for the experience of it. Should be quite an atmosphere.

[SHODAN]

I thought zoomers were people from Gen Z?

[James310]

Must admit, i've never actually been to any of the marches. May decide to go along to the one in October just for the experience of it. Should be quite an atmosphere.

Make sure and ask where your money is going if you pop any in the collection bucket.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/indy-group-cash-row-founder-18788456

[Cataplana]

Make sure and ask where your money is going if you pop any in the collection bucket.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/indy-group-cash-row-founder-18788456

The Daily Record has never asked where money in collection buckets goes before. Pity, it could have saved a few lives back in the day.

[Fife-Hibee]

Make sure and ask where your money is going if you pop any in the collection bucket.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/indy-group-cash-row-founder-18788456

Make sure to ask where our money is going when Scotland pops another £30bn into the rUK collection bucket. :wink:

[marinello59]

Make sure and ask where your money is going if you pop any in the collection bucket.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/indy-group-cash-row-founder-18788456

The money from the March at Aberdeen on Saturday was signalled up in advance as going to local food banks so I’d say give generously.

[James310]

The money from the March at Aberdeen on Saturday was signalled up in advance as going to local food banks so I’d say give generously.

Well that's why I said ask where your money was going. Glad to see they have changed their policy.

[allmodcons]

I thought it was a good article because it described exactly the frustration many of us feel when faced with unreasonable rantings of people who are supposed to have the same goal in mind.

I thought that was a subject worth discussing and I called no-one out. If people recognise themselves in his article, that's for them to rationalise. If some people recognise others, then that tells you something too.

I was originally going to title the thread "Remind you of anyone", but I decided that was too clickbaity so I deliberately explained it more fully by adding the author's description.

The description he gives isn't even insulting and compared to some of the vitriol posted on this forum, it's almost a compliment!

I've often found myself almost turning against independence because of the unreasonable attitudes and antagonism I've read on social media. Fortunately, I've always been able to calm down but I'm certain that other folk have been put off altogether.

They're destructive and dangerous to a cause I hold very dearly.

If that's not a Holy Ground issue, I don't know what is.

I think it's a really poor article by someone with a grievance of his own.

As has been said on here many times before there are extremists on both sides of the debate. Call them "zoomers" if you like. I've always found that the best way to deal with extremists who are Yes supporters is to challenge them.

I have to say I was surprised as to why an Independence supporter would write an article decrying Yes "zoomers" with little or no reference to No "zoomers".

For me this just reinforces my first sentence (i.e. - the writer has a personal grievance).

[lord bunberry]

I think it's a really poor article by someone with a grievance of his own.

As has been said on here many times before there are extremists on both sides of the debate. Call them "zoomers" if you like. I've always found that the best way to deal with extremists who are Yes supporters is to challenge them.

I have to say I was surprised as to why an Independence supporter would write an article decrying Yes "zoomers" with little or no reference to No "zoomers".

For me this just reinforces my first sentence (i.e. - the writer has a personal grievance).
It’s not like it’s the first time he’s come out with this sort of thing. I don’t believe he’s a supporter of independence.

[Hibbyradge]

I think it's a really poor article by someone with a grievance of his own.

As has been said on here many times before there are extremists on both sides of the debate. Call them "zoomers" if you like. I've always found that the best way to deal with extremists who are Yes supporters is to challenge them.

I have to say I was surprised as to why an Independence supporter would write an article decrying Yes "zoomers" with little or no reference to No "zoomers".

For me this just reinforces my first sentence (i.e. - the writer has a personal grievance).

The point he's making is that the aggression and antagonism from some in the Yes camp are putting people's backs up. People who's votes we hope to win.

That's an issue for the pro-indy movement.

The No camp can be as zoomy as they want. Their behaviour is of no concern because the more potential No voters they piss off the better.

[lord bunberry]

The point he's making is that the aggression and antagonism from some in the Yes camp are putting people's backs up. People who's votes we hope to win.

That's an issue for the pro-indy movement.

The No camp can be as zoomy as they want. Their behaviour is of no concern because the more potential No voters they piss off the better.
He greatly exaggerates things though in an attempt to convince no voters that read his unionist newspaper that all yes voters are as he calls us zoomers.

[Hibbyradge]

He greatly exaggerates things though in an attempt to convince no voters that read his unionist newspaper that all yes voters are as he calls us zoomers.

That's not what I got from it at all.

I don't know who he is, so I've no preconceived ideas about him and I've certainly no axe to grind, but what he says echoes with my own experience.

He doesn't tar all yes voters with the same brush or else I'd be annoyed. He clearly talks about a minority.

Regarding the previous comments, he actually does discuss "No zoomers" even though they're not the subject under discussion.

"When you tell them that online Unionist trolls are just as bad, they simply don’t believe you. The experience of Yes supporters may be one of Unionist abuse and bullying, but if you’re a Unionist your experience will be one of bullying and abuse from nationalists. That’s how social media bubbles work.

The bottom line is that soft No voters, who hold the balance of power in any future referendum, are being deterred from shifting their position because of the nastiness of a vocal minority in the Yes movement."

[lord bunberry]

That's not what I got from it at all.

I don't know who he is, so I've no preconceived ideas about him and I've certainly no axe to grind, but what he says echoes with my own experience.

He doesn't tar all yes voters with the same brush or else I'd be annoyed. He clearly talks about a minority.

Regarding the previous comments, he actually does discuss "No zoomers" even though they're not the subject under discussion.

"When you tell them that online Unionist trolls are just as bad, they simply don’t believe you. The experience of Yes supporters may be one of Unionist abuse and bullying, but if you’re a Unionist your experience will be one of bullying and abuse from nationalists. That’s how social media bubbles work.

The bottom line is that soft No voters, who hold the balance of power in any future referendum, are being deterred from shifting their position because of the nastiness of a vocal minority in the Yes movement."
As I said in my first response to this article it makes a lot of points that will ring true with many people on both sides of the debate, but when I saw who had written it i knew right away what the content would be. The guy has a long history of saying he supports independence, but constantly writes articles and posts things on Twitter criticising the yes movement. His articles are designed to appeal to his readership which is predominantly on the unionist side along with the paper he writes for.

[allmodcons]

The point he's making is that the aggression and antagonism from some in the Yes camp are putting people's backs up. People who's votes we hope to win.

That's an issue for the pro-indy movement.

The No camp can be as zoomy as they want. Their behaviour is of no concern because the more potential No voters they piss off the better.

He's over egging the pudding. There isn't much anybody can do about these people other than challenge them and explain to soft no voters that they are a vocal minority who do not represent the wider Yes community.

[Hibbyradge]

As I said in my first response to this article it makes a lot of points that will ring true with many people on both sides of the debate, but when I saw who had written it i knew right away what the content would be. The guy has a long history of saying he supports independence, but constantly writes articles and posts things on Twitter criticising the yes movement. His articles are designed to appeal to his readership which is predominantly on the unionist side along with the paper he writes for.

As I said, I've not encountered him before so I have no idea what his motivations might or might not be.

The question is that if Jimmy Ordinary had written the article, maybe in the Herald, would you have been able to agree with it?

It certainly rings loud bells with me and it seems, several others on this thread.

[lord bunberry]

As I said, I've not encountered him before so I have no idea what his motivations might or might not be.

The question is that if Jimmy Ordinary had written the article, maybe in the Herald, would you have been able to agree with it?

It certainly rings loud bells with me and it seems, several others on this thread.
I already gave my analysis of the article earlier in the thread and I’ve said numerous times since that what he says has some merit, but my problem with the article is the person writing it. If you had encountered this guy before you would also take everything he says with a huge pinch of salt. You have a so called independence supporter writing for a unionist paper. He knows which side his bread is buttered and anything positive he has to say about independence (which is very little) has to be countered by numerous accusations of independence supporters being total zoomers. The spat with the journalist that said it was wee jimmy krankie appearing at the event was a classic example. People rightly called her out for it as it’s a jibe used by unionist trolls to insult Nicola Sturgeon. Nicola stepped in to defuse the situation as any decent politician would. there’s no doubt in my mind that the bbc journalist knew exactly what she was doing. Maybe it was a joke, but it completely backfired. The reaction was predictable, but from what I saw not in any way abusive.

[JeMeSouviens]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaargh.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECcSNZMUcAEh4EY?format=jpg&name=large