THE digital guru responsible for Yes Scotland’s social media operation has criticised a pro-independence blogger for some of his output during the referendum campaign.
In an interview for a BBC documentary, Stewart Kirkpatrick said that “expletive littered rants” from Wings Over Scotland were “really” not helpful.
He added that the so-called “cybernats”- online Nationalists who round on critics of the SNP and independence - “unequivocally” hurt his cause.
Entitled ‘Yes/No – Inside The Indyref’, the three part series on the 2014 referendum was made by Paul Mitchell, whose previous work includes ‘Inside Obama’s White House’ and ‘The Death of Yugoslavia’.
The first part, screened last week, focused on the deal struck between the Scottish and UK Governments which paved the way for a plebiscite.
The second instalment, which will be broadcast this week, contains exclusive interviews with key players on the two head-to-head debates between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling, who was chair of the pro-UK Better Together.
It also concentrates on the influence of social media in helping both sides get their message across to voters.
The Yes Scotland campaign was regarded as having an impressive social media offering, but critics believed the official messaging was undermined by the aggression of the cybernats.
Wings over Scotland, a website run by Bath-based Stuart Campbell, became a popular resource for some pro-independence supporters who were frustrated with newspapers and the BBC.
However, some of Campbell’s output also frustrated figures in the Yes movement who believed it turned off floating voters.
In an interview for the documentary, Stewart Kirkpatrick, who was Yes Scotland's head of digital, said that a Wings pamphlet on independence had been a “stroke of genius”, but said:
“The impact of Wings? Are we talking about the Wings over Scotland who is the data-driven journalist, who gets to the annoying nugget and writes a piece around it and can’t be argued with? Or is it the guy who refers to Tory politicians as troughing scum and goes on expletive littered rants on Twitter? This guy was very helpful, this guy really wasn’t.”
Speaking generally, he added: “The cybernat thing definitely hurt us. Unequivocally. People being abusive online did not help the Yes campaign.”
Campbell was also interviewed and spoke about why he set up Wings over Scotland: “Very early on I realised how bad the newspaper coverage was, how bad the tv coverage was.”
He also said: “Other countries, independence campaigns, have waded knee deep in blood. All we did was occasionally call each other some names on Twitter. The idea that Scottish people are shocked by a few swear words is laughable.”
Meanwhile, the documentary also revealed the anguish of Salmond’s key advisers after they watched their boss perform badly in the first debate with Darling.
Salmond was expected to win the debate, but he nosedived after focusing on what he regarded as Unionist scare stories about outer space and Scots having to drive on the right hand side of the road.
Geoff Aberdein, who was Salmond’s chief of staff, said he was “devastated” by the performance: “I walked into an adjacent auditorium….and just put my head in my hands for a good forty minutes.”
Kevin Pringle, who was Salmond’s trusted spin doctor, added: “It just didn’t really work terribly well.”
Salmond, in his own interview, admitted making a “mistake”, adding: “It’s like having a great idea last thing at night. It’s less a good idea in the morning.”
However, Salmond performed better in the second debate and was judged to have beaten Darling.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel