You’re probably aware by now that the ostensibly pro-indy journalist Neil Mackay has been at it again. Not content with his proposal a few days ago that would essentially make it impossible for Yes to win any future referendum by introducing a 1979-style “60% rule”, he’s now penned a dismal “exclusive” that continues his war against much of the Yes movement, and which prays in aid quotes by a number of senior SNP people who probably should have known better. I’m inclined to agree with this response from Thomas Widmann of Arc of Prosperity fame –
“I’ve often thought the SNP leadership actually would rather be without a movement. Of course they like the membership fees and having somebody who will deliver their leaflets, but they’d rather people didn’t speak or act in public if they’re not paid by the party to do so.”
Those who were quoted on-the-record by Mr Mackay were careful in how they chose their words (although I did roll my eyes to the heavens at Alyn Smith’s conspiracy theory stuff about “false flag” Yes accounts, which if taken too far could easily lead us down a Leask-style rabbit hole where we’d all start accusing each other of being Russian agents). But there were a couple of rather more provocative comments which, unsurprisingly, no-one was brave enough to put their name to. For example:
“Much of this [Cybernat trolling] is about who can monetise the Yes movement. It’s about who is getting the most clicks, donations and subscriptions.”
I have a shrewd idea about which SNP parliamentarian may have said that, although I won’t name any names in case I’m wide of the mark. But what I would say is that the individual in question almost certainly draws a salary well in excess of the income that anyone could realistically draw from a DIY fundraiser, so I’d suggest he or she ought to be rather more circumspect about accusing others of “monetising the Yes movement”. Just like anyone else making a living (either in whole or in part) out of their support for independence, he or she can only really justify that in the long run by producing results.
I don’t particularly feel my ears burning at the mention of monetisation, because although I’m one of the relatively small number of Yes people who have fundraised over the years, I don’t think anyone could (credibly) accuse me of using abusive tactics to advertise this blog. But then again, if it’s not someone like me, who are these mysterious people that are supposedly using abuse to generate an income? Presumably the dig is partly directed at Stuart Campbell, simply because he’s a bit sweary sometimes, but who else is there? Let’s be honest here: being a troll on social media is not a particularly effective money-making strategy. If you look at the genuine trolls and ask yourself how much they’re making out of it, the answer is pretty obvious: absolutely nothing.
I suspect the parliamentarian who made the accusation knows full well that there is no link between “Cybernat abuse” and “monetisation”. So why knowingly say something that isn’t true? I would guess it goes back to Thomas’ insight: this is an attempt to pathologise any ‘non-authorised’ Yes activity. It doesn’t really matter whether you’re coaxed into believing that ‘unofficial’ initiatives are motivated by money, or by support for Vladimir Putin. Just so long as you end up believing they’re all thoroughly illegitimate, that’ll do fine.
