Universality of Cheese-gate. A Blogger Writes AGAIN

Well, I stand corrected. I've rarely seen such a considered and thoughful clutch of comments on any blog post. How embarrassing for poncy pundit. Too much to comment on so I've done a post. I fully accept that I come from an age before new media, being a preening presenter and professional pontificator. Many did behave like Gods talking down the the little people - though I don't think I did.  

It may also be that, like the shipyards, hacks like me are on my way out - obsolete technology. Replaced by citizen journalists and bloggers. The web has blown open our cosy monopoly of comment. I accept also that the blogosphere is more democratic in the sense that it allows a greater expression of views than in the old elitist printed press that was handed down from on high.  


On the other hand, there was something about the way in which newspapers and print periodicals were edited and created which is worth preserving, if it can be. Editorial discrmination is important in any published medium, and that is what the web is, though most people have taken some time to realise this. This is not just to ensure that what is written is reasonably accurate, legal, fair. But also that it is thoughtful, considered, coherent, elegant even. This is important if communication is not just to become a shouting match, where everybody descends into abuse.  


I think this is what has tended to happen on the blogosphere in the past. But I think things are perhaps beginning to change now, and the character of the posts on this blog may be an indication of that. Blogging is also, like newspapers, going just a little out of fashion, with fewer fewer being created and updated. See"Twitter and FacebookMmake Blogs Look So 2004" . I think one of the reasons social networking has gained popularity is that, unlike blogs, they are not quasi-publications, but are directed at a target audience, preselected. They are about conversation among friends. This means people don't have to put up with the crazies as bloggers do. Really, there is nothing I have come across anywhere in public life that is quite as unpleasant as blogging if you have a recognisable name.


But it also means that the crazies may be moving on. In which case, the blogosphere will become a much more important vehicle of debate and become more of a published and written medium than a conversational one. Look, I know that this sounds terribly pompous and a bit precious, but think about it. If you were following a blog that you wanted your teenage children to read, what would you like it to look and sound like?  

The trolls and cybernats realise that the time is up anyway, because anonymity - which has been the scourge of the web - is itself on its way out. There is a real possiblity following Cheese-gate that order and - dare I say it - a degree of discipline might now start appearing in the blogosphere. Soon everyone will know where everyone lives.

Mega brill. But it doesn't stop all you nasty bloggers putting me out of a job! Wot about the workers!

Universality of Cheese-gate. A Blogger Writes.

     A number of people in Scottish public life are feeling distinctly uneasy following the outing of Mark MacLachlan as the 'evil genius' behind the cybernat blog "The Universality of Cheese".   A lot of politicians, some of them quite prominent, have been posting anonymous vituperation on the blogosphere.  They know who they are - and the rest of the world probably will soon too.  The stuff is there forever, if you know where to find it.   Mark discovered just how easy it is for nosey hacks to trawl through months of postings to find the few incriminating remarks that, strung together, make you sound like a cyber thug.

    A number of people have expressed sympathy for Mark MacLachlan, including the estimable Joan McAlpine  saying that he is a cultured citizen of the world, a man of intellect and ability. That he is not a venomous cybernat spreading vile smears about other people in public life.  Others have pointed out that the things he said were really rather tame and commonplace on the web and are only really offensive when taken out of context.   But this is precisely the problem with the blogosphere - it's so easy to say things that you later might regret - especially when they are mashed up by the News of the World.   And if his remarks were so benign,  why did Mike Russell, his boss, sack him the instant he heard that Mark was behind cheesy blog?

Actually, I'm surprised no one has seriously questioned Mike Russell whether he was aware of the existence of "The Universality of Cheese" blog and MacLachlan's alter ego, Montague Burton.  I can't believe he wasn't.   He is one of the foremost exponents of new media in the party, and was himself into websites and the blogosphere before most politicians and journalists.  He had his own website which he closed down for political reasons.  His blogs have become private since he became a minister.   Mike Russell was a victim himself of the blogosphere blowback, and it would be extremely surprising if he hadn't at least had some suspicions as to the identity of Montague Burton, even if he didn't endorse his cybersmears.

Look I'm not trying to attack Mike Russell, the new Education Secretary, who is one of the ablest and most intelligent politicians in Scotland. But I suspect that the outing of the cybernats is going to continue and it is likely to damage a lot of prominent people.  The point is that the kind of things Mark MacLachlan was saying, and the manner in which they were expressed, were quite acceptable in the discourse of the pub, or the committee room, but not in wider public debate where the rules are different.

  And it's no use citing other blogs like Guido Fawkes in Mark's defence.  That just makes the case. The standard of debate on the internet is dire and deeply depressing.  This is the main reason that people have turned away from blogging and taken to social networking sites like Facebook where they can avoid being abused by anonymous idiots.    Many people I know don't put comments on blogs that they read because they just don't want to be part of the slime.

  As this blog has pointed out before - and has even  demonstraed in practice  - there is an inbuilt bias on the blogosphere toward vituperation.  It is written into the very architecture of the web.  The surest way to get noticed on the internet -  to generate traffic, attract links, get ranked on Google - is to attack people in the most offensive way possible.  It makes blogs come alive.  Most blogs aren't really there to be read, they're there to be reacted to.

   Which is fine.  No problem with people ranting away in space if that's what they want to do - in private.  But people need to remember that this is a published medium - just like newspapers.  Anonymity is no longer a way of concealing identity, and it is certainly no defence in the law.  Increasingly, you have to be absolutely sure not only that what you are saying is legal, but also that you can stand by it when it is public - and it almost certainly will be made public - because it is out there FOREVER.

 The anonymity of the web is the real problem - it leads to blog rage.  I hated reading the comments that used to be posted on my sites here, at the Herald and at the Guardian. After a while it becomes nauseating and depressing.  As I've said before, it's like addressing a public meeting where the audience are all wearing Donnie Darko masks.  That's why I stopped blogging - or rather turned the blog into an online column based on the material I write for print.  Iain Macwhirter Now and Then is really an anti-blog.

 I hate and rage myself, of course,  but I try not to do it in public.  I only write on a blog something I would be happy to seen in print with my name on it.  If Mark had done the same thing, he would still be employed.

Questions, questions. Just how many options does the SNP need?

 Er, just how many questions is that again?  Once upon a time independence was a simple matter - you just asked people whether or not they agreed that: “The Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the UK so that Scotland becomes an independent state”. That’s how it was  in the original draft bill published by the SNP in 2007.   Now, anything goes.

   Today’s St Andrews Day surprise from the SNP government, we are told,  is that there are going to be four options presented in today’s White Paper.  There will be Independence (see above); ‘Devolution Max, or fiscal freedom short of independence; a Calman Commission option of shared income tax; and our old friend the Status Quo - whatever the hell that is.  

  But why stop there?  Why not have a full federal option, whereby there is a formal separation of powers with Westminster, as favoured by the Liberal Democrats?  What about an Iceland option, where you become independent but stay out of the European Union. Many people might favour a Republican question, whereby Scotland is no longer subject to the arbitrary influence of a constitutional monarch.  An Alaskan option might also be considered whereby Scotland remains in the union, as a federal state, but retains control of oil revenues and has diplomatic ties with Russia. Or a Ruritanian option where Scotland declares itself independent, and then does nothing at all except march up and down. 

 This is all getting a little silly. You can’t have a meaningful referendum with four options. The results would be so various that it could be almost impossible to achieve a consensus. Mike Russell, the Constitution Minister, insisted yesterday that there will not be four actual questions on the ballot paper,  which will not be published until next year.  But if there are four constitutionally valid options, I don’t see how you can avoid putting them all before the people. 

 

   The great virtue of the 1997 devolution referendum was that the questions were very clear and transparent.  You could see what you were voting for, and as a result there was an overwhelming affirmation of the favoured constitutional option: a Scottish Parliament with primary legislative powers.  That three to one majority in 1997 ended the constitutional debate for a generation.  Having four options would simply create a huge argument,  not so  much a national conversation as a national rammy.

  Presumably, this option-inflation is an attempt by the SNP to confuse the issue - to turn the debate into a kind of constitutional soup into which all the constitutional options dissolve, allowing the SNP to get along with governing under devolution which, until now, they had been doing very successfully.  The ‘multi-option’ option is a also a distraction from the inconvenient truth that Scots really don’t want to be bothered with constitutional change, at least not now.  The latest Ipsos/Mori poll suggests that support for independence is down to 25% and that only 20% of Scots want an early referendum. 

   This stands to reason.  Asking people in the middle of a recession whether they want to tinker with the constitution seems slightly  indecent - like asking an unemployed man whether he would prefer to be in an English or a Scottish dole queue.  There are more pressing matters - which doesn’t mean the issue has gone away.  In the Mori poll, 50% agreed with having a referendum “in a few years”  In present circumstances, with the SNP government in mid term difficulties, that’s not at all bad.  Maybe Alex should quite while he’s ahead; maybe that’s exactly what he is trying to do today. Lay the independence question to rest for a few years while they sort themselves out. 

  This St Andrews Day is turning into a bit of a nightmare for the SNP.  These disappointing polling returns follow defeats on key policies like minimum alcohol pricing and local income tax, Labour’s crushing majority in Glasgow North East by election, and an epic bust up with local authorities over class sizes.  Alex Salmond is beginning to look a little like Gordon Brown.  There’s even a nationalist sleaze scandal - Universality of Cheese-gate - where a nationalist aide to the Constitutional Affairs Minister, Mike Russell, has been caught spreading abusive and highly offensive hate mail over the internet.  Shades of Labour’s Damian MacBride and his vile smears from Number Ten. The rebarbative behaviour of the cyber-nats is hardly news, but it is a shock to discover that one of them was under the wing of Mike Russell, one of the most enlightened figures in the SNP.

    When things start to go wrong in government they all go wrong together. It will take extraordinary skill to get through the next six months with the government’s integrity intact.  Alex Salmond faces defeat of the referendum  bill in parliament, defeat at the general election and the disintegration of the “historic” concordat with Scottish local authorities.  Press commentators are poised to declare the beginning of the end for Alex Salmond and the end of the end for independence. We will no doubt be reading soon how Nicola Sturgeon - who performed with her usual effortless competence on Question Time last week - should be taking over from Shrek before the SNP lose the plot entirely.  But I wouldn’t write of the big man yet. 

   And we shouldn’t write off independence entirely yet either. Or rather we should, but for a reason. What we will see today, I believe, is the SNP coming to terms with reality - which is that formal independence is becoming increasingly marginal to Scottish constitutional politics.  Everyone knows that the referendum on independence isn’t going to happen.  The debate is now all about extending home rule - how far and how fast.   

  The Calman Report, for all its faults, is a tribute to the success of the SNP in office. All the unionist parties now support giving Holyrood, greater tax powers - something that would have been inconceivable only three years ago.  Whoever wins the next UK election, something like Calman is going to be introduced and this will require the active co-operation of the SNP government.   This will be an opportunity for the SNP to turn Calman into something workable: to convert devolution min to devolution max. 

  That’s if they remain in office - and that’s not looking at all certain any more, after this St Andrews Day nightmare.  Alex Salmond needs to get a grip, put aside multi option metaphysics and focus on winning the Scottish election in 2011.