Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 7th August 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

SNP's national conversation 'a chatroom for cybernats'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 April 2008
ALEX Salmond's "national conversation" on Scotland's constitutional future was last night dismissed as "a chatroom for cybernats" by Labour after it was suggested as little as 1.5 per cent of Scotland's population had logged on to its website.
Written answers given to Lord Foulkes, a Labour MSP, showed that, while there had been 353,061 hits on the site, these came from 59,554 unique users. Lord Foulkes claimed this represented about 1.5 per cent of the electorate, although it is n
ot clear how many of these users are from Scotland.

This pales in comparison to popular social networking sites such as Facebook, which has an estimated 800,000 users in Scotland and millions of hits.

Last night, an SNP spokesman accused Labour and other Unionist parties of failing to engage with anybody in their constitutional commission.

The "national conversation" website is the centrepiece of a £40,000 three-year package to engage with the people of Scotland on the country's future.

Launching the initiative last August, Mr Salmond said it was "the most wide-ranging, inclusive and direct effort from any Scottish government to engage with every person who has a view on the future of our nation".

But last night, Lord Foulkes asked:

"Who is talking in this national conversation? Just short of 60,000 users is a small amount and, even if they all came from Scotland, which I doubt, that represents a mere 1.5 per cent of the electorate.

"The whole site seems to have been designed to attract the small army of cybernats who bombard media and political websites in Scotland in an attempt to create a distorted view of public opinion.

"This is underlined by the fact there is no proper registration for people who leave comments. All they (are] asked to do is put a first name and location, which they can make up."

He added: "It's interesting 41 comments have been removed, but there are still anti-English remarks bordering on racism (on the site]. This is less of a national conversation and more of a cybernat chatroom set up at taxpayers' expense."

An SNP spokesman said:

"(Lord] Foulkes and Labour should look at their constitutional commission, which has engaged zero members of the public.

"The national conversation is engaging with hundreds of thousands of ordinary people so they can help shape Scotland's future.

We are also engaging with major organisations and, this week, we received the backing of the Scottish Trades Union Congress for the national conversation."

TALKING A GOOD CHANGE
THE National Conversation, launched by the SNP, is the official Scottish Government review into Scotland's constitutional future.

The initiative hopes to get people's views through its website and roadshows.

The pro-Union parties have launched a rival constitutional commission which will not look at independence but only more powers for the Scottish Parliament.





The full article contains 483 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

24/04/2008 23:44:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

karinxxx,

25/04/2008 00:09:51
angus you forgot about him knocking over an old lady.
3

karinxxx,

25/04/2008 00:11:58
is the official Scottish Government review into Scotland's constitutional future

What on earth does this sentence mean.

is there an unofficial scottish government or some kind of unofficial review? There is only one review?

The antinal conversation?
4

karinxxx,

25/04/2008 00:12:08
soree national.
5

Jackie Priest,

25/04/2008 00:12:30
60,000 people particpating on an online debate on a single website is an absolute huge amount.

Compare it for example with the couple of dozen fruitcakes who post on the Scotsman website day to day.

That gives you an idea.

This man has no idea what he is talking about.
6

Senga Jean,

25/04/2008 00:25:20
C'mon SCOTLAND. We CAN do it.
7

Vivas,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 00:30:48
Hilarious that The DeadManWalkingsMan would have the nerve to give this a headline. Only 60,000 eh ???

How about this number.

53,519

A virtual pint to the next punter who can identify that figure. I'll give you a clue, "it's dropping all the time"
8

Jackie Priest,

25/04/2008 00:31:07
This story is amazing. What is the Scotsman doing printing stuff like this.

Look at this

"The whole site seems to have been designed to attract the small army of cybernats who bombard media and political websites in Scotland in an attempt to create a distorted view of public opinion."

Oh, I see. So people who support independence shouldn't be allowed to post there views on public forums? Is that the idea?

A distored idea of public opinion?

Listen, man. We ARE the public. We ARE public opinion.

And what is public opnion translated into votes? That's right. The SNP. Our government. The biggest political party in Scotland.

So, it's not really much of a "distorted view of public opnion" that you're seeing online. What you're seeing is the expression of public opinion.

And I suppose the pro-unionist hegemony of presses like the Scotsman are giving us a super dooper insight into public opinion in Scotland with their constant attempts to undermine the most popular party in Scotland and the most popular leader the country's probably ever had.

This is some of goofiest nonsense I've read in a long time, even by Scotsman standards. And, of course, Foulkes is entering last restort territory along with all the other unionists. If you can't beat them, insult them, eh? That'll go down well with the 40% of Scottish voters who support the SNP, so it will.
9

Jackie Priest,

25/04/2008 00:34:08
#7

You hit the nail right on the head.
10

Jwil,

25/04/2008 00:53:22
What about the silent majority who would not have access to a PC or those who have, and wouldn't necessarily be inclined to contribute to the National Conversation website, but may have their own opinions about the benefits of independence?
11

FrancesP,

25/04/2008 00:55:15
At last, a George Foulkes-related story. The Scotsman's coverage of Foulkes-related material has been utterly pitiful of late. I demand - no, the hard-working families of Scotland demand - that this paper appoints a dedicated George Foulkes correspondent, preferably the great man himself. In fact, it's high time there was a proper George Foulkes section of the paper, so that at long last matters of Foulkes are given their rightful parity of esteem alongside international affairs, science & techonlogy and education.
12

Stepford Nat,

A chatroom 25/04/2008 01:03:23
What this Lordy Fella doesn't understand is that normal people don't spend all waking hours posting on the internet, discussing things that don't affect their day to day lives.

Ordinary people have better things to do, like feeling oppressed.

www.snp.org - we have more important things to do than chat on the internet!
13

Vivas,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 01:04:04
Jackie P, I don't mind this comic's political writing one little bit. I just file it under "light entertainment/comedy".

That 53,159 figure (and dropping) is bringing in less and less dosh to Hootsmon towers. My understanding is that it's this website - and the number of hits it recieves - that keeps advertising revenue going and keeps many (ahem) "journalists" off the dole.

Perversely it's the cyber-nats (for arguements sake I'll call myself one but I'm no party member), that are keeping this ship from sinking altogether, by rising to the bait that The NorthBrittishMan comes out with every day. More fool me ;-)

A decline in SNP fortunes and a unionist revival would probably see the number of "website hits" here decline substantially, so the The UnionsMan should be careful what it agitates for ... even if The Scotsman "wins" in the end ..they'll end up losing ! As it stands, I'm not at all sure that an organised withdrawl of "cyber-nats" from these boards, couldn't just kick away the last financial supports of The CringeMan at a moments notice :-))
14

,

25/04/2008 02:15:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

a proud doonhamer,

Dumfries 25/04/2008 02:15:59
350,000 hits, 50,000 contributers

average of 7 hits per contributer

hardly the invasion of the cybernats!!

Desperate allegations intended to discredit a conversation that is attracting Scots from across the country.

Labour would give anything to have website that would attract this many contributors.

Why is the Bendy Wendy Commission not putting forward a website where the public can comment? Is this not allowed by the Prime Sinister and his band at Westminster?

Lord Zebedee could contribute as well if he could find a way to post in crayon.
16

Guga II,

Rockall 25/04/2008 04:13:18
Forfoulkesake, I see the Hootsmon are still paying a retainer to the drunken lord to put his two bob's worth in.

Why didn't they elicit any comment from him about the lack of a smilar website from the Mouth of the South. I presume though that her Westminster masters (they of the "listening" government) wouldn't allow her to actually listen to the voters.
17

,

25/04/2008 06:40:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

yockel,

25/04/2008 07:07:37
In your rush to put out a blanced article you forgot the url
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/a-national-conversation
19

McX,

25/04/2008 07:19:57
I say, I say, I say, what do you call an English owned, English edited, English staffed newspaper with a distinctly anti-Scottish government bias?


The Scotsman.


Tim Bowdler really is laughing all the way to the bank...

Heh heh heh I wonder which £17k a year graduate web based journalist will edit this name away lest his £1m a year boss gets miffed that his name gets mentioned on one of his own forums...
20

Alasdair,

25/04/2008 07:29:16
What? A politics site scores less hits than a social networking site? Shocking.
With insight like that, it's no wonder David Maddox has risen so quickly to the heights of North British Political Correspondent.
Next he'll be telling us that more people watch Eastenders than Question Time.

Dolt.
21

Truely English,

25/04/2008 07:39:31
Could it be that lots of the foot soldiers involved in politics are volunteers and many accordinding to a politician are dross?

Does this ring true in Scotland. Maybe not.
22

eric,

25/04/2008 07:41:06
Natter natter natter!
23

gus1940,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 07:50:34
Yet another instance of the use of single quote marks in a headline to mislead readers.

This is getting ridiculous.

24

john z,

edinburgh 25/04/2008 07:54:25
More rubbish from the Scotsman/daily record (not sure which it is). Either way, apparently Labour are doing really well in Scotland, and Wendy Alexander is skillful in her mastery and command of the debating chamber at holyrood during first minister questions. Apparently.
25

,

25/04/2008 07:54:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

Nikostratos,

25/04/2008 08:07:49
George Foulkes well done reveals just what a con the snp cybernats conversation really is.........You snp drones have done the snp no favours by your actions on the conversation website...........better less Comments but 'REAL' ones from ordinary scots.........you snp lot have really shot yourselves in the foot who can pay any attention to what the final outcome of the conversation is now....................
27

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 25/04/2008 08:20:42
Gosh, I didn't know Labour and her followers were so out of touch.

It's called a computer. That thing with the tv screen. And "t'internet" is a special magic place that you can enter using your "computer".

Anybody can do it, anybody can access any site and express a view regardless of political leanings.

Go on you old fuddy duddies, come join the 21st century Scotland (or alternatively, remain where you are but your voice will not be heard as times are a'changin').
28

Conan the Librarian™,

25/04/2008 08:34:20
Thirty posts so far,only four pro-union, and one of those dosn't count as nurse won't be around with Nikos meds till nine o'clock.
29

Labour Sleeze Reporter,

25/04/2008 08:36:33
For Foulkes Sake is a tw@t. Of course anyine in the IT business knows that using the word 'hits' is wrong.
H ow
I diots
T rack
S uccess

What they should be using is user sessions, unique user sessions and pageviews per user session.

A webserver serves up possibly hundres of hits just for one page. Let's get the terminology correct so we can decide for ourselves.
30

McX,

25/04/2008 08:39:47
#30 Conan, we in the elite cybernat brigade own their bases.
31

Scotland to prosper...,

25/04/2008 08:43:39
27# Niko

The Scottish Conversation website is a forum for discussion allowing ALL people a chance to air ALL their views (unlike Labours constitutional commission that refuses to look at Independence). I hope you are not so naive as to think every person will have a credible argument. However it is precisely this ability to allow a full and open discussion that ultimately gives the Scottish Conversation credibility.

It’s a telling fact that Boy George seems to think only crazed cybernats are visiting the site. Is he therefore suggesting there are 60,000 nuts running about Scotland? Good to see Foulkes is a man of the people, always giving them the benefit of the doubt. And then to suggest that 60,000 is a poor figure, I’d like to see the figures from Foulkes Facebook page!

Lets not forget this website has only been running for a maximum of 10months. 353061 hits is pretty significant considering. It’s pointless to even compare Facebook with the Scottish Conversation forum as Facebook is a social networking site, popular with children and teenagers, politics I’m afraid, is not!

Labours strategy in handling this whole affair has been amateur at best. What an insult to the Scottish people to launch a review that doesn’t take into account all the possibilities. They say they omit Independence from the review because the majority of Scots didn’t vote for it. However a significant number did vote for it and to refuse them a rightful voice in the review reveals Labour for what they are. For Wendy to call Labour a socialist party is an affront to the people of Scotland and to those who are truly socialist.
32

Canning,

25/04/2008 08:47:57
#7 is it season ticket holders at Parkhead?
33

McX,

25/04/2008 08:49:30
I wonder whether the Baron is still banned from Facebook.
34

Canning,

25/04/2008 08:50:35
#12 i really hope you can see the irony in the comment that you posted.
35

McX,

25/04/2008 08:53:52
#36 the Step is a brave attempt at a comical unionist. Just keep patting him on the head, he loves it.
36

Union is Best,

25/04/2008 09:04:28
18. Cider - good post! Certainly as someone who has been banned repeatedly from this site for foul and abusive language I feel you have leveraged your special expertise in cyber fruit-cakery well in that post.

27 - Niko, good post, and rest assured that the STUC, Henry McLeish and all the rest of the turn-coats who are endorsing an independence referendum will be disciplined and brought back into the fold!
37

David MacVicar,

Web 25/04/2008 09:21:36
Criticism of the conversation is more than welcome. Keeps it in public view for a start.

However criticism from an opposition politician should be backed by some alternative. Labour has a closed shop, closed door, narrow and entirely unionist agenda where the public has zero idea about what they are discussing and zero idea about the positions of the participants.

Are they going to popup one day and proclaim some kind of 'Final solution'?

Until then the opposition needs to put up or shut up instead of vacuous comments and petty jibes that are at the same level of debate as the very worst of any of the Conversation posts.
38

McX,

25/04/2008 09:22:26
Gentlemen, forget all this nonsense of cybernatting and onionism, here's something to cheer the very cockles of everyone's soul.

http://tinyurl.com/6ysp2z

work and wife safe.
39

David MacVicar,

web 25/04/2008 09:23:43
I should add and where the participants of the unionist cartel have 'zero' idea what to propose except that they agree that any change should be as close to zero as possible.
40

Number 6,

Germany 25/04/2008 09:49:31
What weak journalism you find here. The desperation and fear brought on by the SNP momentum is building
amongst the unionistas, and this kind of claptrap is all they have in reply ?.
41

,

25/04/2008 09:49:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

antifa,

25/04/2008 09:54:10
The National Conversation is a laudible attempt at engaging public opinion, but come on - it has failed to generate any real enthusiasm from much of the population. That cannot be denied by any honest person.

Can Scotland undertake major constitutional change in the midst of such apathy? Perhaps it can, but I can't think of any precedents in modern history.

Compare the current atmosphere in this country with that of Slovenia and Croatia before they broke free of Yugoslavia, a noble idea which had become poisoned by political opportunism.

It's a fair point Labour are making. A foreigner reading these message boards would get the impression there was a huge popular movement for independence, but we all know that's not the case and the polls confirm it: people are just not sure.
43

Melly,

Sussex 25/04/2008 10:00:50
Where did David Maddox get this non story. Did the drunkard F(o)ulkes from from his evening hostelry to give him an anti SNP scoop? or were they in bed together dreaming this up? What kind of journalism is this for goodness sake it`s absolutely pathetic.
44

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 25/04/2008 10:06:16
This attack shows that Labour are still in love with old fashioned print media and think that they can seek to control what's happening on blogs or to rubbish them. The problem for Labour is, no matter how they seek to control the media people will just get their news from other sources. For example, I don't just read the Scotsman. I get my news from a variety of sources. The public, it seems, are far more media savvy these days than Labour.
45

,

25/04/2008 10:09:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

Union is Best,

25/04/2008 10:14:29
43. Ciderman - nice one! Had you not posted under that current moniker about your previous bannings for lunacy, abuse and disgusting language, as well as sexually propositioning female posters (how odd, you don't even know what they look like?) you may have got away with it! Nice one re. George Foulkes, rolling in gutters on top of old ladies and punch policeman is not fruit-cakery!
47

Union is Best,

25/04/2008 10:16:54
47. Nice one, especially as Labour has not taken £93 million from big business and rich donors (if anyone mentions the Hindujas, Mittal, Ecclestone or any illegal donations from a Mr Abrahams or a Mr Green just ignore and move on back to Soutar!)

Don't proposition any posters for a bit if you can control the urge Cider, as you are doing great on here at the moment!
48

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 25/04/2008 10:19:03
"Lord Foulke discovers the internet forums" would be a more accurate title.
A percentage based on the 'have and 'have nots' of computers is ridiculous. Especially when you consider these unionist luddites don't even own their own domain name :-http://www.thelabourparty.org/ is truly hilarious. Add to this bizarre comparison of the specific to general when he it trying to target a specific point of 'hits", a three year old could see through that.

the luddites of Labour onionite in their backward ways.

Guid riddance.
49

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 25/04/2008 10:22:29
Yaaaaaaaaaaawn.......
50

Melly,

Sussex 25/04/2008 10:33:24
Ciderman#47
Stupid reply to my post. I asked where Maddox got this story. It`s pathetic that a "journalist" just sits at his desk waiting for anti SNP stories to emanate from the supreme "Liebour spokesman". Name me one anti Liebour story that was printed in the Scotsman that emanated from an SNP "spokesman". I read quite a few newspapers daily, and cannot say that any of them are as biased as this rag.
51

Highland Mighty,

25/04/2008 10:35:13
"Who is talking in this national conversation? Just short of 60,000 users is a small amount and, even if they all came from Scotland, which I doubt, that represents a mere 1.5 per cent of the electorate.

"The whole site seems to have been designed to attract the small army of cybernats who bombard media and political websites in Scotland in an attempt to create a distorted view of public opinion."

SURELY NOT! LOL! This has made my day!

While 1.5% may have registered hits, don't forget that less than 0.001% have actually contributed.

Outstanding! I may even say I support Labour in my next poll!
52

Highland Mighty,

25/04/2008 10:51:40
53. Contd - And let's not forget the cybernats in the USA, Canada, Austria, Switzerland (more cyberracist than cybernat), Finland, France, Germany, Spain, Oz and NZ who are all regulars on here, the Herald and other media sites, are registering multiple times on online polls, have multiple usernames etc.

Nats = students and ex-pats.
Unionists = professionals living and working in Scotland.
53

McX,

25/04/2008 10:53:57

"This is underlined by the fact there is no proper registration for people who leave comments. All they (are] asked to do is put a first name and location, which they can make up."


and they're doing it D E L I B E R A T E L Y !
54

Arfur,

25/04/2008 10:59:18
"The whole site seems to have been designed to attract the small army of cybernats who bombard media and political websites in Scotland in an attempt to create a distorted view of public opinion" - yes Foulkes you keep telling yourself that.

An SNP spokesman said:

"(Lord] Foulkes and Labour should look at their constitutional commission, which has engaged zero members of the public." - exactly, but then that would mean that Labour were a party that actually cared what the people of Scotland said.
55

McX,

25/04/2008 11:03:39
Here's a more measured dignified place to read and post.

http://www.destination.sco.eu
56

Union is Best,

25/04/2008 11:06:33
54. Well said, and as soon as you get a job it will be true as well!
57

Union is Best,

25/04/2008 11:10:12
59. AM2

great post! Thank goodness no comments are made by, for example, candidates for Mayor of London, or BBC presenters, that Scots are subisided pararsites! We would rush to ignore such if it ever happened, in a bid to present a few fringe types on one side as relevant, rest assured!
58

Matt M,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 11:11:29
"What this Lordy Fella doesn't understand is that normal people don't spend all waking hours posting on the internet, discussing things that don't affect their day to day lives."

My God, anyone who ever glances at online newspapers would be forgiven for thinking all the Nats do is sit up all night frothing at the mouth posting vitriol on forums such as these. Perhaps once they might actually address the issue the article relates to instead of projecting insults but as per usual its all a "unionist" conspiracy - and as for "being oppressed" perhaps they might want to ask the clients and their families of the voluntary organisations forced to make cuts or close their doors due to the SNP/Tory budget.
59

Union is Best,

25/04/2008 11:16:04
61. "perhaps they might want to ask the clients and their families of the voluntary organisations forced to make cuts or close their doors due to the SNP/Tory budget."

Well said, we Unionists said exactly that as we voted to divert £190 million in lottery funding from Scottish charities to the London Olympics.
60

,

25/04/2008 11:16:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
61

McX,

25/04/2008 11:19:34
#59 Yay he's back. I take it you're still banned from Facebook?
62

Union is Best,

25/04/2008 11:20:05
63. Great post. Salmond is not my leader, I follow Brown and Cameron and Clegg!

Love the substantive and analytical aspect of your post, it is a yard stick for Unionist thinking and debating skill!
63

,

25/04/2008 11:25:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
64

Highland Mighty,

25/04/2008 11:26:41
60. Where are these? Link it, child!

Are we talking about Boris Johnson?
65

Matt M,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 11:28:56
"Union is Best"

Ah so the Olymics is to blame for the SNP/ Tory budget? Only one problem with that. The budget is not about lottery funding, it's about public funds(ie tax revenue)and the SNP and Tories have combined to cut them to voluntary organisations. It's their fault pure and simple as much as they try to blame everyone else. To paraphrase the SNP - IT'S TIME they took responsibity.
66

,

25/04/2008 11:29:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

McX,

25/04/2008 11:33:05
Ciderman, does your girlfriend still make you sleep on the wet side of the bed?

You'd think she'd have stopped peeing it by age eleven...
68

,

25/04/2008 11:36:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
69

Portland Geoff,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 11:37:46
The term 'cybernat' was coined to describe the insomniac nationalist bloggers who peddle their distorted, largely offensive and, at times, xenophobic view of the world.

Comments 1-17 QED.



70

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 11:43:19
Foulkes is indeed a joke... the man who thinks in his own words that the Nats are "deliberately" trying to make Scotland a better place to live in.

But anyway, the fact that him and his dear leader are both so upset by cybernats (her mention of it in her conference speech was frankly cringeworthy) kinda shows just how little of substance they have to talk about. They're banging on about irrelevancies cos that pretty much all they can bang on about.
71

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 11:47:15
Oh and his obsession with continually wasting taxpayers money and civil service time with pointless trawling FOI requests is parasitic and a disgrace.
72

,

25/04/2008 11:56:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
73

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 11:57:53
And finally.... read this:

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/politics/Car-park-saucy-picture-shoot.4015564.jp

... we're used to Labour goons fantasizing about getting back into Scottish Government offices .... but this is just ridiculous ;-)
74

brownlie,

25/04/2008 12:11:18
Highland

I agree that is is disgraceful that only 60,000 contributed to the National Conversation which is broadly in line with the postings from your good self, AM2 and the increasingly surreal Cider-pops in any given week. On the other hand it is approximately 60,000 more than contributed to our beloved Unionist Review/Commission.
75

Grahamski,

Falkirk 25/04/2008 12:14:24
George Foulkes is obviously doing something right judging by the kind of vitriolic hatefest being spouted by the usual suspects of the SNP lunatic fringe. Swivel-eyed, ill-tempered, illiterate and just a tiny bit racist: don't you just love the cybernats in all their self-righteous and smug glory?
The more people who are exposed their hateful and repellant views the better.
76

brownlie,

25/04/2008 12:16:48
76 Chris J

Us unionists will not take lectures from the sober nats on our beloved Gorgeous George Foulkes who is a legend in his own lunch-time and an absolute night-mare for old ladies. He was probably "fitted up" by the old bill for, single-handedly, consistently fighting for the votes of vulnerable two year-olds who do not pay taxes and do not bother voting.
77

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 12:20:33
#81 You attack the SNP for being ill tempered, yet only ever display bile and abusive language yourself.
Racist? Get knotted - I'm English & was at the SNP conference last weekend with lot of other English members. Where we were born is not an issue in the slightest. Its called civic nationalism and a desire to improve the country that is your home.. concepts that clearly leave you behind. The "racism" only exists in the heads of yourself and others like you - and if I may say its a predictably lame tactic of the Labour Party to try playing the race card. Its not working though.
78

brownlie,

25/04/2008 12:20:38
81 Graham

Us unionist are straight-eyed, good tempered, literate and more than a tiny bit racist and nobody in their right minds, if sober, would call Lord George smug - he is the epitome of humility and never forces his opinion on others except vulnerable old ladies.
79

,

25/04/2008 12:21:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
80

Grahamski,

Falkirk 25/04/2008 12:22:07
82
Who needs a national conversation when you can have snide wee anonymous personal attacks on the internet, eh?
Welcome to the cybernats' view of a SNP-led Scotland: intolerant, bitter, grievance-fuelled and nasty.
No thanks...
81

Grahamski,

Falkirk 25/04/2008 12:23:57
83
Chris,
I think you should be addressing your remarks to your racist colleagues skulking in the ranks of the nationalist movement.
82

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 12:29:14
#87 To use your own words, intolerant, bitter, grievance fuelled and nasty pretty much sums you up.

You obviously don't have the mental faculties to engage in real debate so have to try baseless smears.

And no-one was skulking - why would we need to with such a sense of purpose and optimism in the air?
83

,

25/04/2008 12:30:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
84

brownlie,

25/04/2008 12:31:40
86 Graham

If you want some illustrations of snide wee anonymous personal attacks you need look no further than Grahamski's posting at 81 above. You may also find intolerance, bitterness, grievance fuelled nastiness in the same posting.
85

brownlie,

25/04/2008 12:35:22
89 Ciderman

Hi, Scrumpy, Much as I consider Union to be an extremely able advocate for unionism, sadly, the only thing we have in common are Jackie's briefings and concern for HM's ability to change identities without recourse to a phone-box.
86

Grahamski,

Falkirk 25/04/2008 12:35:26
88

You obviously don't have the mental faculties or indeed vocabularly to engage in debate either, choosing to plagiarise my posts, top marks for choosing me to copy, though.
On the topic of why your racist elements need to skulk, I wouldn't have thought Mr Salmond was going to proclaim that his party is racist and proud any time soon, hence the skulking.
87

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 12:37:25
#92 You're now losing the plot pal.

I'm quoting back your own bile to you or is your memory failing you?
88

Highland Mighty,

25/04/2008 12:42:04
90. YOU may want to read any of Jackie Priest's ranting posts about unionists not being 'true Scots' and the "gypsy" "culture-less" English.
89

Union is Best,

25/04/2008 12:44:41
87. Grahamski - nice one! "British Jobs for British Workers!" "London keeps the Scots in the style they are accustomed to"! "Scots are subsidy junkies!" "Scots like to spend money money but not to earn it"
90

brownlie,

25/04/2008 12:48:24
94 Highland

You may wish to know that an obvious faker is posting under your monicker on another Scotsman thread under the Trump heading. You and I may not agree on much but I cannot stand people using some-one else's monicker which, I venture to suggest may well be the case with Jackie Priest's as well.
91

Highland Mighty,

25/04/2008 12:49:02
95. Where's the London mayoral candidate and the BBC journo on that smash-hit site, the Nat Conversation?
92

,

25/04/2008 12:49:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
93

Union is Best,

25/04/2008 12:51:12
98. Well said! The SNP desire to raise all revenue in Scotland is a clear sign of their desire to be dependent on Westminster funding!
94

Highland Mighty,

25/04/2008 13:00:06
96. A nat talking p*sh under my username?

Why, that really would be a pathetically childish thing for someone to do.

Are you sure?
95

,

25/04/2008 13:00:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
96

,

25/04/2008 13:03:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
97

Highland Mighty,

25/04/2008 13:04:14
102. He says he only turns up for "Scotland-related" votes.....then it's revealed that he has only turned up for 4 out of the last 170 votes.

4 out of 170 doesn't exactly demonstrate muchWestminster "interference" in Scottish affairs, does it?
98

brownlie,

25/04/2008 13:06:06
101 Highland

I do not know if it was a nat - it certainly was not Grahamski because it was not abusive - but it was some crap about bodily functions.
99

Nurse,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 13:28:56
Dont you just love Lord Foulkes he is such a sweat inteligent old Labour Dinosaur, it wont be long before he goes totaly ga ga, and start criticising the SNP for putting Scotland`s interests first and trying to help the poor by getting rid of the Poll Tax, oh sorry didn`t he do that on National TV / Bless him, hope he keeps up with his anti - dementia med.
100

Miss H,

25/04/2008 13:41:57
104 What it demonstrates is Westminster's increasing irrelevance in Scottish politics and the absurdity of Westminster retaining control of matters which should really be decided in the Scottish Parliament.
101

brownlie,

25/04/2008 13:45:35
103 Ciderman

You may recall that yesterday, i.e. the day before today, I stated that I abhor all abuse but especially racist abuse whether that be from unionists, nationalists, don't knows and English Democrats. Indeed I had to have a word with HM or was it you, yesterday regarding abuse.
102

brownlie,

25/04/2008 13:48:04
107 Nurse

I think you gave George the benefit of the doubt on at least two occasions but you left out his word "deliberately" before "putting".
103

Resolutions,

25/04/2008 13:54:12
For those busy having a go at the National Conversation, have you actually visited the site, let alone participate?

From the ill-informed comments from a lot here, it would seem not, but then maybe tha idea of actually being able to put a view is alien to you except when you can pass snide comments and worse about other folk. Most of them showing a desparate shallowness too.

Have you any ideas at all on your country? Or are you prepared to be told what is good for you by so many clones based in Westminster or thereabouts? And for that part, what are you contributing to Scotland at the moment? Girning you are good at!

#7 Suspect, its something to do with circulation of a printed item?
104

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 25/04/2008 13:54:26
Anybody else starting to think that either Lord Geordy has something on the Scotsmans editor or that he is a major share holder in the company that owns it.
105

Saruman,

25/04/2008 13:55:28
#8 Priest writes: “And what is public onion translated into votes? That's right. The SNP. Our government. The biggest political party in Scotland.”

Sorry, Priestie, but you must know as well as I do that the SNP is only too eager to attract voters who don’t actually support its independence agenda. It’s completely misleading to equate support for a political party which seeks to promote a welter of policies with support for its most discredited policy, ie the independence agenda. What’s more, Salmond is attracting votes in his capacity as leader of a devolved administration, not as the future leader of a separatist answer to Albania. Am I right or am I right!
106

Highland Mighty,

25/04/2008 13:59:34
109. "Indeed I had to have a word with HM or was it you, yesterday regarding abuse."

Did you?
107

brownlie,

25/04/2008 14:02:09
114 Highland

Yes, I did - check it out!