Are You Doing Your Bit?

[AUFC90]

Well, the Rangers thing is just to make a couple of points in context-appropriate terms.

This is a Scottish football website and I'm here talking about a bunch of people who have become wildly paranoid and are wholly convinced that legions of people are conspiring against them, for little or no reason. Rangers are a Scottish football team and its supporters are wholly convinced that legions of people are conspiring against them.

If you'd prefer, just on this BBC thing - I could switch the comparison to Ukip's view of the Beeb, which is more or less equal and opposite to yours. It's also quite comparable with many people's reaction to the recent bombing of Gaza by the Israeli Defence Force, during which diehards of both sides protested outside BBC HQ and bombarded its employees with lunatic accusations that their reporters hanker for the genocide of either the Israelis or the Palestinians. For the right-wing unionist nut version, you could try the Biased BBC blog as a good representative - a proper boobyhatch that's pushes views on the BBC that are just about the precise inverse of yours, even though their basic complaints are pretty much identical.

The result is the same for all such people, though: angry partisans from all sides who are equally convinced that the BBC is appallingly biased against them but, when you actually look at what their objections are, it turns out that they're pissed off because the Beeb

- Interviewed people that they don't like, without shouting "You lying motherf*cker" at them every ten seconds;

- They allowed opinions to be expressed that angry partisans don't like, and without appending the words "This motherf*cker is lying" on the end and

- Their journalists asked impertinent questions of the partisans' favoured spokespeople.

I see little or no difference between any of these groups in their attitude to the press, to be honest: SNP, Rangers fans, Ukip, Israel/Palestine fanatics, Unionist nutters. For every valid point any of them make, there are a hundred lunatics scanning the BBC's staff roster looking for hacks who are married to politicians, or whatever.

The aim is exactly the same for all of them, though: to make reporting news that these groups don't like an enormous hassle, due to the great mounds of shit that get dumped on them for doing so. It's all about deterrence - making journalists think twice about doing their jobs however they think is best to do it, and to instead worry about saying the wrong thing and enraging a shower of monomaniacs.

And I have to repeat here that it's mighty convenient for these people that it's always the BBC that they wind up attacking, rather than some private news company that will answer back loudly and immediately.

I mean, and this is just the one issue, about people bombarding the BBC. There are plenty of other examples I could use to illustrate my main point, which is this:

If you find yourself e.g. flailing around shouting about how the media have got it in for you and your mates, because they just luuurve the people you hate, then it's probably not BBC Scotland or anyone else that's lost it and gone mental.

It's probably you that's lost any sense of perspective.

An organisation that covers up paedophilia is more than capable of being bias when it directly concerns their future as the public broadcaster for Scotland. If you can't see that then your heads as far up your arse as all the Rangers fans you hate so much.

[John Lambies Doos]

we are in the politics forum with three pages of rants all about rangers .

Who?

[sophia]

I do miss the Reynard and his philippic nonsense, so I say well done to flyingrodent for bringing some less than serious posturing to this part of the board.

Keep up the comedy.

[pandarilla]

Just to add to the BBC debate: flyingrodent has twice stated that the BBC is 'an easy target' - and insinuated that attacking them is the actions of a bully.

Painting the BBC as a weak and defenceless organisation is a very strange line to take. It is an incredibly powerful organisation. It has had its fingers burned fr political bias before (Iraq war stuff) and since then has been incredibly paranoid about public opinion.

I did not protest but after the referendum I sent a complaint to their news organisation for its reporting of the post-referendum trouble in George Square. They published a report which did not state which side had caused the violence - hen it was very clear which side had been the guilty party. For me this just chimed with the general tone of subtle bias that had been clear in the last few weeks of the campaign.

One of the most blatant for me was the reporting of the supermarket threats. They always made the top headlines but when one of the claims was refuted the next day (I think it may have been Tesco but can't quite remember) the story was way down the list. That's what I'd expect of the Daily Mail or the Sun.

For my money the organistion let itself down. The fact that Rangers fans also seem to think they have been victims does not in any way make those two claims equal. That's such an incredibly obvious point but the poster seems to have missed it.

[The_Kincardine]

I'm comparing SNP cheerleaders to Rangers fans, mainly because most new SNP converts are every bit as much of a paranoid bunch of reflexively cvntish, flag-waving, shite-repeating, conspiracy-theorising, BBC-protesting, journalist-hating, traitor-sniffing, what-abouting and bullshit-swallowing shower of empty-headed, credulous fanboys as most Rangers fans are.

I assume that you'll disagree and say that you're, like, totally different to the worst kind of mindless WATP, flag-saluting Sevconian zombie.

I'm here to tell you - you're not.

Brilliant. I always kent I liked Rhatbhoy

[I'm Brian]

Well, the Rangers thing is just to make a couple of points in context-appropriate terms.

This is a Scottish football website and I'm here talking about a bunch of people who have become wildly paranoid and are wholly convinced that legions of people are conspiring against them, for little or no reason. Rangers are a Scottish football team and its supporters are wholly convinced that legions of people are conspiring against them.

If you'd prefer, just on this BBC thing - I could switch the comparison to Ukip's view of the Beeb, which is more or less equal and opposite to yours. It's also quite comparable with many people's reaction to the recent bombing of Gaza by the Israeli Defence Force, during which diehards of both sides protested outside BBC HQ and bombarded its employees with lunatic accusations that their reporters hanker for the genocide of either the Israelis or the Palestinians. For the right-wing unionist nut version, you could try the Biased BBC blog as a good representative - a proper boobyhatch that's pushes views on the BBC that are just about the precise inverse of yours, even though their basic complaints are pretty much identical.

The result is the same for all such people, though: angry partisans from all sides who are equally convinced that the BBC is appallingly biased against them but, when you actually look at what their objections are, it turns out that they're pissed off because the Beeb

- Interviewed people that they don't like, without shouting "You lying motherf*cker" at them every ten seconds;

- They allowed opinions to be expressed that angry partisans don't like, and without appending the words "This motherf*cker is lying" on the end and

- Their journalists asked impertinent questions of the partisans' favoured spokespeople.

I see little or no difference between any of these groups in their attitude to the press, to be honest: SNP, Rangers fans, Ukip, Israel/Palestine fanatics, Unionist nutters. For every valid point any of them make, there are a hundred lunatics scanning the BBC's staff roster looking for hacks who are married to politicians, or whatever.

The aim is exactly the same for all of them, though: to make reporting news that these groups don't like an enormous hassle, due to the great mounds of shit that get dumped on them for doing so. It's all about deterrence - making journalists think twice about doing their jobs however they think is best to do it, and to instead worry about saying the wrong thing and enraging a shower of monomaniacs.

And I have to repeat here that it's mighty convenient for these people that it's always the BBC that they wind up attacking, rather than some private news company that will answer back loudly and immediately.

I mean, and this is just the one issue, about people bombarding the BBC. There are plenty of other examples I could use to illustrate my main point, which is this:

If you find yourself e.g. flailing around shouting about how the media have got it in for you and your mates, because they just luuurve the people you hate, then it's probably not BBC Scotland or anyone else that's lost it and gone mental.

It's probably you that's lost any sense of perspective.

Interesting you omitted Celtic fans from your list of complainers, but that's beside the point and a wee fly dig from me

I will reiterate my view that there are some who go way over the top. But you seem to be stereotyping us all. I could, for example, say that every Celtic fan is a paranoid, terrorist loving, Brit hating, chapel dwelling, Labour voting, unemployed nutter...but I don't because I know it is far from the case.

I am well aware that there is an element that you describe. What I take issue with is that you tar us all with the same brush and automatically link them to the SNP. As I previously said I have met literally no one within the ranks of the SNP who meets your description. And I have met people from the top to the bottom and all points in between. Indeed it should be to the SNP's credit that they have expelled members for online abuse.

You probably can find examples of any cause that take issue with the state broadcaster, however that does not mean in any way shape or form that the BBC weren't pro union during the referendum and now anti SNP. You also had the ridiculous scenario where BBC online articles in Scotland were closed to any comments. The only section of the UK to which this ban was put in place.

As stated there was academic research done proving they were slanted towards the union.

You can also add into it the amount of relevant stories they omit to report. A current example was the reporting of the two offices in Aberdeen, reported widely on the BBC, yet The SNP office in Glasgow being vandalised was not. If one is newsworthy so is the other. Why no reporting of the incident at the SNP office?. The implication from our state broadcaster is that it is only "the ugly side of nationalism" that rears it's head. There's the balance that is lacking from our state broadcaster, and dare I say it painting one side out to be worse than the other.

I could cite many more similar examples.

[flyingrodent]

The BBC took a Londoncentric attitude...

Yes, much like it takes a very Glasgow view of most matters in Scotland, just as most major Scottish media outlets do. I notice that e.g. the Sun, Sky or the Times don't get much grief for that though, despite the undeniable fact that all are hugely more ideologically anti-independence than the Beeb.

Also, can we get some clarity here on whether it's the UK BBC or BBC Scotland that's especially biased here?

Newsnight in particular were awful, Scotland was the jokey skateboarding duck story after the serious stuff....

To be fair, Newsnight is awful on just about everything and has been for years.

You conveniently ignore the credible academic research done on the practice of BBC bias.

I'm sure there's a wealth of "credible academic research" on the BBC's anti-SNP bias. God knows, there's tons of it that supposedly proves beyond all doubt that the BBC is disgracefully biased against e.g. the Israelis, and some equally convincing papers cataloguing its chronically anti-Palestinian behaviour. Seemingly, it both loves and loathes both the Tories and Labour as well.

You'll be staggered to learn that there are also numerous zoomers and loonballs who are every bit as convinced as you are that the BBC was dead set against them over the independence referendum, although they think that Atlantic Quay is infested with seditious, socialist and probably Celtic-supporting secessionists, rather than No voters.

Who's right? I think I'll go for "neither", myself.

If the BBC do get more flack then it is because they are paid for directly by the public. They are supposed to be impartial. Other media outlets are not paid for with a licence fee. People don't get taken to court for refusing to pay for sky.

Yes, this is precisely the same argument that you'll find on, for example, the Bears' Den, except they perceive the opposite treachery

An organisation that covers up paedophilia is more than capable of being bias...

And you won't struggle to find examples of that argument at Rangers Media either.

Give me a minute, I'll respond to the rest in a new comment...

[MassiveFanDan]

There are words that describe people who deliberately choose only to attack the weakest enemies that they can find. "Cowards" and "Bullies" strike me as the most apt terms, although worse ones exist.

Enough about UK foreign policy, what's you opinion on The Nats?

[flyingrodent]

Just to add to the BBC debate: flyingrodent has twice stated that the BBC is 'an easy target' - and insinuated that attacking them is the actions of a bully.

Painting the BBC as a weak and defenceless organisation is a very strange line to take. It is an incredibly powerful organisation.

It's an "easy target" in comparison to, say, Murdoch's titles, which would all respond to even a fraction of the bile and protest the BBC has received with several campaigns of vicious and sustained abuse.

Partly, Murdoch titles don't get this treatment because the former First Minister spent several years buttering Murdoch up in a series of well-documented romantic encounters. He had to answer a lot of questions about those meetings at the Leveson Inquiry, as you'll surely remember. They don't usually go after Desmond titles like the Express either, for much the same reason - too many awkward questions, see?

But really, the SNP targetting the BBC is no different at all to certain football clubs banning the BBC and badmouthing its journalists. It's an easy way to rile up the zoomers and set them off raging at a convenient target, more certain than ever that they're an embattled minority. And deliberately picking the targets that are least able to defend themselves is usually a mark of cowardice, I think.

I'm unsure why this is controversial, though. I said much the same the last time that Rangers banned the BBC and I don't remember much upset or disagreement. I assume then that it must somehow be very, very different when the Nats rile up a horde of zombies and send them whingeing and bleating to BBC Scotland's door, than it was when Charlie Green used to.

Interesting you omitted Celtic fans from your list of complainers, but that's beside the point and a wee fly dig from me.

You can feel free to add them, if you like. They've had their own run-ins with the media and the authorities and few of them were much less wacky than the kind of thing that I'm talking about here.

I am well aware that there is an element that you describe. What I take issue with is that you tar us all with the same brush and automatically link them to the SNP. As I previously said I have met literally no one within the ranks of the SNP who meets your description. And I have met people from the top to the bottom and all points in between. Indeed it should be to the SNP's credit that they have expelled members for online abuse.

I don't think the raging, physically-present BBC protesting applies right across the board, no. Nor does the crazy all-caps social media aggression, although it's a lot more widespread than you'd find in any other major political party.

I identified quite a few different behaviours originally that do apply across the board, though. The tendency to robotically repeat the last thing that the SNP said in the papers, and make out like you're Socrates while you're doing it, is definitely one. There are a hell of a lot of Pod-People knocking about the country at the moment, droning exactly the same party-approved talking points on and on, and most of them seemingly under the impression that they're liberated free-thinkers rather than parrots.

You also had the ridiculous scenario where BBC online articles in Scotland were closed to any comments. The only section of the UK to which this ban was put in place.

I'd suggest that this is probably to do with the fact that there was a live election in Scotland, and there wasn't in the rest of the UK.

I didn't hear about this one at the time though, so I may be wrong.

A current example was the reporting of the two offices in Aberdeen, reported widely on the BBC, yet The SNP office in Glasgow being vandalised was not. If one is newsworthy so is the other. Why no reporting of the incident at the SNP office?

Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that this is a real, serious example of terrible bias.

What's the net effect of this story appearing and another not, do you think? How many people will read an online article? They can read it everywhere else, after all. Let's assume that it'll make at least some people think less well of the Nats. How many votes will it cost you? If you think it'll cost you a lot, how many seats will it cost you?

I know it sounds frivilous, but it's a serious point. Let's say the Beeb maliciously reported one and not the other. What's the real world effect? How badly will this undercut your campaign?

You are, after all, winning by a country mile at the moment.

[1320Lichtie]

Flyingrodent you're actually speaking so much shite here it's incredible, keep up the good work

[oddly optomistic]

Yes, much like it takes a very Glasgow view of most matters in Scotland, just as most major Scottish media outlets do. I notice that e.g. the Sun, Sky or the Times don't get much grief for that though, despite the undeniable fact that all are hugely more ideologically anti-independence than the Beeb.

Also, can we get some clarity here on whether it's the UK BBC or BBC Scotland that's especially biased here?

To be fair, Newsnight is awful on just about everything and has been for years.

I'm sure there's a wealth of "credible academic research" on the BBC's anti-SNP bias. God knows, there's tons of it that supposedly proves beyond all doubt that the BBC is disgracefully biased against e.g. the Israelis, and some equally convincing papers cataloguing its chronically anti-Palestinian behaviour. Seemingly, it both loves and loathes both the Tories and Labour as well.

You'll be staggered to learn that there are also numerous zoomers and loonballs who are every bit as convinced as you are that the BBC was dead set against them over the independence referendum, although they think that Atlantic Quay is infested with seditious, socialist and probably Celtic-supporting secessionists, rather than No voters.

Who's right? I think I'll go for "neither", myself.

Yes, this is precisely the same argument that you'll find on, for example, the Bears' Den, except they perceive the opposite treachery

And you won't struggle to find examples of that argument at Rangers Media either.

Give me a minute, I'll respond to the rest in a new comment...

Do you work for the BBC? I'm no Rangers fan but just because some of their fans have given certain arguments doesn't make them wrong. It seems you are the one that seems to be saying "if you're not with us, you're against us". If you don't agree with aspects of the BBC then you're a loonball or a Zoomer? Must be nice to lump people into groups like that. Personally, I prefer to take a more grown up approach and look at the evidence, but each to their own

[pandarilla]

It's an "easy target" in comparison to, say, Murdoch's titles, which would all respond to even a fraction of the bile and protest the BBC has received with several campaigns of vicious and sustained abuse.

Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that this is a real, serious example of terrible bias.

The Sun is a comic. Why would anyone get wound up with what the Sun says for Christ sake? No-one really gives a f**k because that newspaper has no credibility.

The bias by the Telegraph and Daily Mail (although like the Sun it has very little credibility) has been discussed to death on here.

The difference (in the lack of protest) is that the BBC is state-owned. We pay for it. They are supposed to be balanced.

Your point at the bottom shows the weakness of your argument. You are all but admitting that such subtle bias may exist at the BBC. The fact that the bias is subtle means it will have a small effect - but its continuous. It chips away gradually. Its also not obvious so as not to raise much attention (unlike the Daily Mail for example - where everyone knows what the agenda is).

[sophia]

It's an "easy target" in comparison to, say, Murdoch's titles, which would all respond to even a fraction of the bile and protest the BBC has received with several campaigns of vicious and sustained abuse.

Partly, Murdoch titles don't get this treatment because the former First Minister spent several years buttering Murdoch up in a series of well-documented romantic encounters. He had to answer a lot of questions about those meetings at the Leveson Inquiry, as you'll surely remember. They don't usually go after Desmond titles like the Express either, for much the same reason - too many awkward questions, see?

But really, the SNP targetting the BBC is no different at all to certain football clubs banning the BBC and badmouthing its journalists. It's an easy way to rile up the zoomers and set them off raging at a convenient target, more certain than ever that they're an embattled minority. And deliberately picking the targets that are least able to defend themselves is usually a mark of cowardice, I think.

I'm unsure why this is controversial, though. I said much the same the last time that Rangers banned the BBC and I don't remember much upset or disagreement. I assume then that it must somehow be very, very different when the Nats rile up a horde of zombies and send them whingeing and bleating to BBC Scotland's door, than it was when Charlie Green used to.

You can feel free to add them, if you like. They've had their own run-ins with the media and the authorities and few of them were much less wacky than the kind of thing that I'm talking about here.

I don't think the raging, physically-present BBC protesting applies right across the board, no. Nor does the crazy all-caps social media aggression, although it's a lot more widespread than you'd find in any other major political party.

I identified quite a few different behaviours originally that do apply across the board, though. The tendency to robotically repeat the last thing that the SNP said in the papers, and make out like you're Socrates while you're doing it, is definitely one. There are a hell of a lot of Pod-People knocking about the country at the moment, droning exactly the same party-approved talking points on and on, and most of them seemingly under the impression that they're liberated free-thinkers rather than parrots.

I'd suggest that this is probably to do with the fact that there was a live election in Scotland, and there wasn't in the rest of the UK.

I didn't hear about this one at the time though, so I may be wrong.

Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that this is a real, serious example of terrible bias.

What's the net effect of this story appearing and another not, do you think? How many people will read an online article? They can read it everywhere else, after all. Let's assume that it'll make at least some people think less well of the Nats. How many votes will it cost you? If you think it'll cost you a lot, how many seats will it cost you?

I know it sounds frivilous, but it's a serious point. Let's say the Beeb maliciously reported one and not the other. What's the real world effect? How badly will this undercut your campaign?

You are, after all, winning by a country mile at the moment.

"Nats" and "Beeb".

Too tabloid.

Probably takes the Record.

[pandarilla]

Do you work for the BBC? I'm no Rangers fan but just because some of their fans have given certain arguments doesn't make them wrong. It seems you are the one that seems to be saying "if you're not with us, you're against us". If you don't agree with aspects of the BBC then you're a loonball or a Zoomer? Must be nice to lump people into groups like that. Personally, I prefer to take a more grown up approach and look at the evidence, but each to their own

Yeah there is very much a 'anyone who criticises the BBC is a zoomer' mentality going on.

To not see the difference is a bit strange.

[flyingrodent]

Do you work for the BBC? I'm no Rangers fan but just because some of their fans have given certain arguments doesn't make them wrong. It seems you are the one that seems to be saying "if you're not with us, you're against us". If you don't agree with aspects of the BBC then you're a loonball or a Zoomer? Must be nice to lump people into groups like that. Personally, I prefer to take a more grown up approach and look at the evidence, but each to their own

On the BBC - it's usually the first and fondest target for every new shower of shysters that wants your vote or your cash. Repeated attacks on it usually portend endless nonsense.

It's like meeting someone who almost immediately crowbars a bit of nonsense about global warming being a conspiracy or jet fuel not being able to melt steel beams into a conversation. It's not always an indicator that you're dealing with a nasty and/or nutty person, but it's usually quite a good indicator.

[flyingrodent]

The Sun is a comic. Why would anyone get wound up with what the Sun says for Christ sake? No-one really gives a f**k because that newspaper has no credibility.

The bias by the Telegraph and Daily Mail (although like the Sun it has very little credibility) has been discussed to death on here.

The difference (in the lack of protest) is that the BBC is state-owned. We pay for it. They are supposed to be balanced.

Your point at the bottom shows the weakness of your argument. You are all but admitting that such subtle bias may exist at the BBC. The fact that the bias is subtle means it will have a small effect - but its continuous. It chips away gradually. Its also not obvious so as not to raise much attention (unlike the Daily Mail for example - where everyone knows what the agenda is).

Whether you respect the Sun or not, it's still the country's second-biggest paper by circulation, read by millions of people weekly. The Times and Sky are seen by millions more, and the reason that they're not being constantly bitched-out, even though they're massively more biased against independence is - it would create lots of political problems for those doing the bitching.

As we've seen though, attacking the BBC gets the troops onside and riled up for fighting foes who won't hit back. It's a no-lose situation.

And my point at the end of that comment was for the sake of argument. You've heard of "playing devil's advocate"? That's what this is - let's imagine that you are correct, and see what the actual effect would be.

I usually find you can get a feel for the severity of a problem if you have a think about what it would be like if it was real.

[I'm Brian]

I'd suggest that this is probably to do with the fact that there was a live election in Scotland, and there wasn't in the rest of the UK.

I didn't hear about this one at the time though, so I may be wrong.

It's not. You are currently free to comment of BBC articles. No official explanation was given, that I know of.

Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that this is a real, serious example of terrible bias.

What's the net effect of this story appearing and another not, do you think? How many people will read an online article? They can read it everywhere else, after all. Let's assume that it'll make at least some people think less well of the Nats. How many votes will it cost you? If you think it'll cost you a lot, how many seats will it cost you?

I know it sounds frivilous, but it's a serious point. Let's say the Beeb maliciously reported one and not the other. What's the real world effect? How badly will this undercut your campaign?

You are, after all, winning by a country mile at the moment.

The Labour and Tory offices were reported on more than the website. On the radio, don't know if they were on Reporting Scotland or not.

It's not a huge story. It is just an example that is fresh in my head. Who knows what impact it may or may not have. But to someone who might be making their minds up it could paint an incorrect picture

Yes we are winning, but things can quickly change..

[pandarilla]

The Times and Sky are seen by millions more, and the reason that they're not being constantly bitched-out, even though they're massively more biased against independence is - it would create lots of political problems for those doing the bitching.

This sentence is simply untrue.

The BBC is supposed to be above bias. It is state-funded and therefore has a duty to uphold.

You are also giving are too much credit to the leaders of the SNP here. The Yes campaign was a very organic and dynamic movement. Salmond & co were not in any way in control of protests.

I agree with you that Salmond in particular has cosied up to some shady individuals and organisations (as most successful politicians will have to do to an extent). It is something I do not like - but has nothing to do with the targetting of the BBC.

I think at the heart of it you are equating two very different groups - simply because they both protested against the BBC. This is not a particularly rational line of argument. The protests were even very different in nature. Not to mention the behaviour and general outlook of the members of both groups (diametrically opposed in many cases).

I am the first to admit that there are some arseholes supporting the SNP just now - how could there not be with the current popularity? Some keyboard warriors are quick to jump on to something without knowing the full details - and many are disparaging towards any opposing views.

But much of that has to do with the length of the referendum campaign and the fact that many opponents to independence simply trotted out dreadful arguments which had been proved incorrect many times before. Its also because of the strength of opposition. The British establishment was mobilised in order to save the union - and were it not for the internet and social media the result would've never been in any doubt. This power and bias makes people frustrated and angry - and sometimes the reactions people can have in the face of it can be unpleasant.

[AUFC90]

What a fucking roaster

[flyingrodent]

This sentence is simply untrue.

I can assure you that it's entirely true. The alternative is to believe that it's a coincidence that the SNP seldom if ever gets into fights with media organisations that its leaders have actively courted, even though those orgs are far, far worse than the ones that they do target; a coincidence that its new supporters just happened to spontaneously and repeatedly gang together to demand reporting that they like better from the one media organisation that e.g. Alex Salmond personally attacked live on national television; another coincidence that this just happened to be the one media outlet that won't respond with poisonous vendettas; and yet another coincidence that they chose to protest the one org that the SNP have long despised most.

That's quite a lot of coincidences.

I think at the heart of it you are equating two very different groups - simply because they both protested against the BBC.

I pointed out a long list of similarities between two very different - yet somehow remarkably similar - groups, and have since been responding to the points that other people have made. Perhaps the focus is on the BBC protesting and journalist-harrassing because that's the area where commenters feel most safe, as opposed to the traitor-sniffing and bawbag-shouting.

Still, you think it's very different when your lot e.g. demand that Nick Robinson be fired than it is when Rangers fans want Jim Spence fired, or when Israel campaigners want Jeremy Bowen fired, or when Indians angrily complain about the BBC, or Palestinian groups, or mental Yank right-wingers, or when any number of other very angry and intolerant groups of political partisans do it.

I think it's painfully naive to suggest that it's radically different when you do it. Taken with your belief that the choice of the BBC as a target of massive directed anger is just spontaneous and wholly-coincidental, it starts to look a bit childish - oh, oor huge, very angry political movement attacks particular media outlets for very different reasons than all these other angry political movements attack the same media outlets.

But much of that has to do with the length of the referendum campaign and the fact that many opponents to independence simply trotted out dreadful arguments which had been proved incorrect many times before. Its also because of the strength of opposition. The British establishment was mobilised in order to save the union - and were it not for the internet and social media the result would've never been in any doubt. This power and bias makes people frustrated and angry - and sometimes the reactions people can have in the face of it can be unpleasant.

"The establishment made me do it" is a new one on me but the general undertone - "We wuz robbed" - isn't new at all. It's the cry of every defeated political campaign in history and this one is no different to any other defeated political campaign, even if it is unusually spiteful and angry.

You might have mobilised a lot of people who weren't previously interested in politics into the Yes campaign, and well done for that, but seriously. Your opponents made things up and told porkies, and these were repeated by the press?

Incredible news, the kind of thing that happens in absolutely every campaign ever, and the kind of thing that the SNP do themselves on a daily basis.

I'll admit that it's unusual for campaigners to get quite as spectacularly butthurt at losing as this, and that the level of paranoia, bile and traitor-detection is unusually high and vociferous in the SNP at present. But you don't get a pass when your campaigners act like raging bawbags, just because you're convinced that "the establishment" is out to get you.