Ignorant and offensive

David McEwan Hill disparages “keyboard warriors” in dumb disregard for the fact that many independence campaigners have mobility issues which, at the very least, limit their ability to participate in other activities. By being so obnoxiously offensive to these people – including myself – he also displays a profound ignorance of the importance of online campaigning in what I feel obliged to remind him is the 21st century.

An intelligent person would be aware of the significance of online campaigning. An intelligent person probably would not thoughtlessly belittle the contribution made by others to a campaign he claims to be concerned about. Which makes it all the more hypocritical of David McEwan Hill when he casts his bitter aspersions on the intelligence of those who express concerns about Nicola Sturgeon’s approach to the constitutional issue.

He complains that those “keyboard warriors” he despises so much express their concerns about the First Minister’s total and unconditional commitment to the Section 30 process while not offering a “different route or different policy will carry us to our goal”. (By which I take it he means the restoration of Scotland’s independence.) An intelligent person would have done a bit of research first in order to confirm that no alternative had been described and that this wasn’t a claim founded on nothing more than his blinkered prejudice against “keyboard warriors”.

An intelligent person would have stopped to reflect before launching such an ill-informed and ill-thought rant, and might then have realised how much more important it is to demonstrate that the strategy actually being followed might be effective than to insist on alternatives without even asking the meaningful questions about the adopted strategy.

An intelligent person would have asked those questions. An intelligent person would have been very disturbed by what they discovered. An intelligent person would then have asked proponents of this adopted strategy to explain how it might work. They would be disappointed. Because for all people such as myself have been asking for this explanation for many months; and although the number of people expressing the same concerns as myself is now growing exponentially, no explanation has been forthcoming.

Finally, there’s David McEwan Hill’s evident desire to control the Yes movement and dictate the terms of debate around the constitutional question. An intelligent person probably wouldn’t be so vacuously presumptuous.

For someone who supposes himself to have the benefit of superior intelligence, David McEwan Hill has managed to author a diatribe which makes normal intelligence seem a rather ambitious claim.

If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.

Donate with PayPalDonate with Pingit

19 thoughts on “Ignorant and offensive

  1. I do hope Mr Hill will be available to tell me how we proceed with a uk gov intent on ignoring and refusing to engage.

    Cannot wait…

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I attended Mike Russell’s talk on Tuesday. He said: ‘Our friends in Europe are behind us. Many of them have said to me that once we have voted Yes in a legally recognised referendum, we will be warmly welcomed back into the EU’.

    I’m quoting from memory, but words to that effect. It was the direct link to European approval which interested me. If this really is true then we have to push back against European perceptions as well as British colonialism, but push back we must.

    The Yes groups and SNP branches must keep pushing on this and make it clear we are no longer prepared to listen to our own leadership talk about ‘illegal’ referendums.

    There is no such thing as an illegal referendum.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. The more I read this blog and Wings , draws me to conclude the independnce movement is undergoing a transition.
      Its the debate that was needed post September 2014.
      A thorough questioning of ideas and motives and WHY they failed.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. The more I read this blog and Whinges draws me to conclude that frustrations with an apparent lack of progress are leading a small but very vocal minority – some with very dubious motives – into ever more tangential and unproductive personal sniping.

        There is no-one more easily led into doing the Devil’s work than the unco self-righteous.


    2. This is why the S30 Order route was chosen. In 2014, and after the dire result, several in the EU stated that Scotland would be welcomed back into the EU if it was independent – in the face of others who stated the opposite. Again, if the Union we have today was a reflection of the Treaty of Union, Scotland would be a successor state, too. That was precisely why Cameron commissioned Crawford and Boyle – to rubbish Scotland’s Union claims – so that England-as-the-UK could claim successor state status in the EU and ensure that Scotland could not re-enter. In the end, he never used the Report because, I believe, all three discovered just how much an independent Scotland would gain if the Treaty was ‘sound’ in law.

      As an equal partner – and a case could have been drawn up to show that very favourably, along with showing England and England-as-the-UK’s perfidy and illegal actings around the Treaty – we would revert back on independence to our boundaries and assets and resources, including maritime and terrestrial. This position is also backed by international law unrelated to the Treaty conditions. The Scots appear to have not a scoobie about that they have, and, for some reason, I cannot fathom – as yet – the SNP seems to be unwilling to risk a case in the ICJ – which would very likely be expedited because of Brexit – yet is very willing to go down the almost impossible route of a S30 Order or a consultative referendum, failing that, both of which routes are at the mercy of Westminster’s largesse and sense of fair play.

      Yes, I know, fair play is alien to Westminster. Even challenging in the domestic courts, unless Johnson is acting illegally, blatantly illegally – is a waste of time and effort and money because the British constitution is almost watertight. Sense should have prevailed in 2014 when we lost. We will never persuade enough NO voters in time to save ourselves, so that would mean that we would have to look for ways that were legal, politically-sustainable, peaceful and democratic (with a ratifying/confirmatory referendum). Yes, that would mean circumventing the NO vote, but so be it. By resiling the Treaty, we avoid pre independence plebiscites, but it would still be legal, legitimate, politically-sustainable, peaceful and democratic (with a confirmatory referendum). Few, if any, countries have gained their independence with a pre independence referendum. All pre independence referendums to date have been lost, Quebec’s twice. I think it is time to face reality. We will not be any worse off if we lose, but I believe we can win if we can bring a powerful case against England-as-the-UK’s role in the Union and its unrelenting breaches of the Treaty.

      England-as-the-UK doesn’t care if it offends us to the core, but it does need what we have to continue its delusional behaviour on the world stage, and many other countries are sick to death of the UK’s posturing and lack of co-operation across the board. Remove the kid glove, throw it away and bring out the iron fist and smash it squarely into the face of England-as-the-UK, and do it on the international stage.


      1. “The British constitution is almost watertight” – I couldn’t disagree more; I would contrariwise assert that it is a shibboleth that has been able to persist as long as it has only because for centuries the Scots have been browbeaten into accepting an apparent substance that is entirely illusory, but which could well crumble into ignomy – both legal and political – on any serious organised challenge.

        As for achieving independence in the face of significant popular resistance merely by some nifty deus-ex-machina footwork, dream on. A supposedly “ratifying” referendum would then be conducted in an atmosphere of rancorous division of the kind in which British Nationalism specialises, so would likely fail in a welter of mutual recrimination that would set back the cause for decades.

        There is no substitute for popular support, and any well-prosecuted challenge to this (cringingly) presumed immutable situation is worthwhile toward that goal, whether to iconoclastically overturn it or alternatively to demonstrate to everyone that we are in no way the equals of some fond imaginings, but actually unwilling hostages of an exploitative foreign regime.


  3. Does Mr Hill use a keyboard? Does Mr Hill use that keyboard to attack others? If the answers are ‘yes’ and ‘yes as we must expect then doesn’t that make him a ‘keyboard warrior’ too?

    Thoughts turn to a syndrome of self-unawareness, not to mention self-shot feet.

    As my American grandson might say, “That’s dumb, Grandad”.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Seems to me the subject of this article wrote a letter to The National and THAT is the correct place for any response, as indeed the author of this article did – and I largely agree with his response IN THE RIGHT PLACE – below the line in The National – mine being similar.

    But naming people on blogs, ordinary punters as I am for instance is I think, unethical. The letter write is not a politician, is not a columnist, he has written a letter to a newspaper. This blog post also has no context, as quite rightly, the letter written to The National isn’t reproduced here, and there would be copyright infringement if it was. So nobody can directly compare the letter with this blog. This article should be deleted.

    As an aside, the author of the letter is an active campaigner, runs a YES shop, writes some good letters to the media, even though that wasn’t one of them.


    1. The author of the original letter has no claim to confidentiality having named himself in that letter. There is, therefore, nothing “unethical” bout naming him here.
      What I publish on my blog is entirely a matter for me. You have no authority to censor this site an make yourself look ridiculous by trying.
      The author of the letter may be all that you say. But so are many of those he insults.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes he named himself in his letter – to The National. But in his letter he didn’t name you or anyone, so it’s not a case of you having to defend yourself. You were not named.

        People can reply to the letters “page”, or on The National website as you did. And he would know to look on that page to defend himself if he wants. But he has no way of knowing you have named him on your blog. So you are denying him the old interent “right to reply”. You have named him without effectively cc’ing him with your character assassination, which is personal to him, not general as he did.

        Your problem is you never admit you got it wrong. And in this case, you got it wrong.


        1. You’re really struggling to defend your silly accusation of unethical behaviour and, in so doing, making yourself look ever sillier. I don’t think anybody can have failed to realise that you simply didn’t bother to check whether I’d published my response on the letters page of the National website. And, given that it is an exchange in a public venue, there is not a single good reason why I should not also publish that response here. If there had been a good reason, maybe you would have come out with it instead of the empty assertion.

          By all means, continue to make a pathetic fool of yourself. I’m done with you.


      2. Take a deep breath, put your reading glasses on, and read the post I started with. Here, I’ll help you, I’m in a kind and caring mood, here’s the first paragraph:

        “Seems to me the subject of this article wrote a letter to The National and THAT is the correct place for any response, as indeed the author of this article did – and I largely agree with his response IN THE RIGHT PLACE – below the line in The National – mine being similar.”

        Did you see that?

        “as indeed the author of this article did”

        I don’t think anybody can have failed to realise that you simply don’t read what you reply to.


      3. Peter, you’re a good man whatevery you say to the contrary. A lesser man would have deleted posts he didn’t like, at least you left them there.


      1. Yes I noticed that, but it’s not in the thread, where you can page back and for to see what’s said.

        I don’t do twitter, but assassinating someone on a blog is like I think, a twitter “pile on”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.