Every Start Requires An End

For some time now (for which, read a year), I've been questioning the future of my blog, mainly as I've just felt uninspired, and at times just too tired to continue with it. I now have the answer.

You all know that I studied in Scotland, then went back to Lancashire, and that I've been aiming for a move back to Scotland.

Well, I have my move.

It's Southbound.

So a blog that started life as a way of keeping my mind active while I was looking for work, then became an extra activity while I was in work can still be that, but seeing as my life is basically about to change radically, I've taken what I view as the logical decision.

I'm pulling the plug, killing off J. Arthur MacNumpty.

It seems foolish to press ahead with it.

However, that's not the same as quitting the blogosphere. Instead, I'll be blogging from The Will Patterson Notebook, where I'll be looking at politics both of the Holyrood and Westminster variety, and maybe throwing in a few more football-based posts, and other stuff besides. I dare say I'll still be posting with variable frequency, but hopefully, once the move's completed (by this time next month), the mojo will be back and I'll welcome the new start. Though of course, The Sunday Whip and Selection Box posts will remain.

Cheers for the ride, guys, but now, I'm changing lanes...

Calling All Bloggers: Florence and Precious Need You

I'm taking a rare step here: as I've probably ranted on previous occasions, I tend to resist request posts. There are, however, times where an exception is required and this is one of them.

To tie in with the vigil being held tomorrow at 5:30 on Buchanan Street in Glasgow (that Monday. 1730, Buchanan Street, Glasgow) for Florence and Precious Mhango, the mother and child facing deportation on the grounds that being forcibly separated almost as soon as they go back to Malawi doesn't meet Home Office interpretations of the word 'vulnerable', Anne McLaughlin and I are hoping to arrange a 'Blog-In' between 1700 and 1900.

So what does this mean?

Essentially, the aim is for everyone who has taken an interest in the subject to post about it between 1700 and 1900 tomorrow, creating a series of posts across a number of blogs which we hope will occupy the blogosphere's attention.

In practice this means one of two things.

If you have already blogged on the subject, we're asking you for your time again, for another post to help keep up the attention that you've kept bringing to this matter.

If you have been interested in the case but haven't yet posted anything on it (and I'm in this camp), then please, please, please make the move and post your thoughts (and I'll reveal my thoughts - as if you can't guess them - in my post tomorrow).

Of course, we're hoping that as many people as possible make their way to the Vigil at Buchanan Street tomorrow. But if you can't, then we'd like as many bloggers as possible to join in the Blog-In. And if you're in the Glasgow area, then of course, you can always have your cake and eat it, by drafting a post set for publication at 5pm and heading to the Vigil.

If you'd like to take part, then please let me know, so I have an idea of the numbers involved.

Rumours of the Scottish Blogosphere's Death are Premature

It's seems fitting that, with changes afoot to the Scottish Roundup, there are reflections on the state of the Scottish blogosphere and its future, with a particularly considered and typically thoughtful (albeit pessimistic) post on the matter from Stuart. So I thought I'd chip in.

Basically, in terms of the Roundup, something has happened that I don't think Duncan or I envisaged. Duncan's been putting shedloads of effort into the Roundup since its inauguration in 2006, and since he invited me onto the bandwagon just under three years ago, it's usually been the case that when one of us is tied up with more pressing matters, the other one can pick up the slack one way or the other. At any given moment, one or both of us had a fair amount of time and energy to devote both to our own blogs and to the wider blogosphere, and I guess that as a result of that, neither he nor I anticipated that real life was capable of kicking both of us squarely in the nuts at the same time. However, it would seem that this is what has happened.

For my part, the work-life balance seems to be getting skewed to the point that it's harder and harder to be bothered even switching the computer on, let alone blogging of an evening, and the energy I do have is going into other social commitments such as being a needlessly violent left back on the 5-a-side pitch. And the World Cup hasn't helped: total political apocalypse could have taken place, but frankly, I've been talking with people more about the latest prediction by Paul The Psychic Octopus. So with the World Cup almost over, and a few days off booked to recharge the batteries, I'm hoping that soon enough, I'll be back to what passes for normal service.

And there seems to be an air of general blog fatigue setting in, but I'd say that's down more to the post-election comedown, particularly as we all adjust to the new circumstances we all find ourselves in.

But there's something I want to pick up on that Stuart said - and I'm not just quoting this for the flattering reference:

It would take someone with a longer term view of things to put that into perspective, but perhaps it's instructive to consider who might replace or supplant the likes of Will, Duncan, Scottish Unionist, Scottish Tory Boy, IoC, Malc, Yousuf and James.

The short answer is probably no one really. I'm not sure if the frequency of new blogs is decreasing, but there certainly seem little sign of a Scottish Guido or Iain Dale appearing.

Well, I've always said that an Iain Dale-type figure for the Scottish blogosphere might not be the worst thing, but despite that, I'm sceptical at the thought that a Scottish Guido, or even a direct Scottish equivalent of Iain Dale is the answer. Imagine the combination of the political landscape, the media and the blogosphere as what we'll refer to for want of a better term as a 'nexus'. The Scottish political nexus is, thanks to the different institutions, parties, states of parties, newspapers and bloggers, a massively different beast to its Westminster-focused equivalent. Accordingly, I can't help but question whether simply importing concepts and approaches from the latter will be of any use to the former. Of course, that's not to say that just because Guido or Iain Dale are successful in the Westmnister blogosphere, they wouldn't work in the Scottish context and that we shouldn't try, but for me, the wiser course of action is to bear in mind the distinct political landscape and the differences in the MSM, and to take advantage of the near-total autonomy that the blogosphere offers to come up with new ideas and new faces. And while having a blogger who can cross over into the MSM with such ease would be a bonus, probably it's more important to have a couple of 'go-to' bloggers that people can rely on.

But that brings me to my next point, which Stuart himself acknowledges:

Another counter-argument to my basic thesis is, of course, that plenty of prominent blogs have come and gone in the past, but the MacBlogosphere generally has survived.

And quite so. The blogosphere is constantly changing and evolving in a way that the MSM can't, as old bloggers quit and new ones take up the reins. Which is why Stuart's reflections on who might replace current bloggers, while based on a valid concern, seem a little out of place. No blogs are ever 'replaced', but they can be succeeded, in a way.

After all, if a journalist at the Scotsman were to fall under a bus tomorrow, the paper could advertise for a new staff member, and hire someone to take their place, who would of course be expected to comply with the house style and editorial guidelines as their predecessor did. If I were to fall under a bus tomorrow, J. Arthur MacNumpty would end, and if someone out there were crazy enough to tackle the same matter I do, they'd have a different perspective to mine and a different style, so even a Sunday Whip feature wouldn't look the same. That new blog wouldn't be MacNumpty, but despite inevitably being very different in look and feel, it could and would occupy the same space and perform a similar role. Not a replacement, but a successor, and it goes without saying that the fluid nature of the blogosphere makes it completely impossible to identify successors, until they actually emerge. By the way, to put it bluntly, as I have no intention of falling under a bus tomorrow or any other day, the aim is that there will neither be nor will there need to be a successor to MacNumpty at any point in the foreseeable future.

Nevertheless, let me just take a look at one final point:

Of course, there may be personal factors in all of this, but overall there does seem to be a trend evident. Equally, there are undoubtedly short-term factors in play - post-election fatigue and disillusionment, most obviously - but with an unprecedented period in UK politics in the last few weeks, not to mention things being teed up nicely for a tough Holyrood vote in ten months time, there does seem to be plenty for Scottish bloggers to get their teeth into.

Stuart is 100% bang on the money here. There's plenty for us to talk about, but it doesn't seem to be happening. Of course, if we don't have time to blog, we can't, and if we're too tired or pissed off to blog, we won't. Here's one thought, which is certainly the case for myself: might we still be trying to make sense of it all ourselves? The changed Westminster landscape is an entirely new beast, but I suspect that we'd have a better time of analysing it and making comments if it were Holyrood, and besides, the actual process of change was fast-moving, but lasted only a couple of days. It took less than a week to get from polling day to the establishment of the Coalition Government. It took a week and a half for Holyrood to find a Presiding Officer in 2007. Events were moving quickly, with all sorts of developments to comment on, but the sheer number of twists and turns meant that they went on for a while. For Westminster, it was all over by the Tuesday after polling day and rather than having to make snap judgements about a rapidly shifting landscape, we're now reflecting on a landscape that has already changed, and what those changes mean in the long term. Three years ago, we had no time to think, and we were all flying by the seat of our pants, waiting for the next twist. Now, we know how Westminster's going to map out and we have time to analyse and reflect on what's happening. Even the Labour Leadership Election is a long, drawn-out affair, and I suppose Parkinson's Law has kicked in: our ruminations are expanding to fill the time available, and with the Summer around the corner, I can't see that changing.

For me, the key period is September to January. The Party Conferences will be fascinating this time around; the Labour Leadership Contest will reach its conclusion; we'll have the continuing row over the timing (and then the question) of the AV referendum; the return to work of MSPs and with that, the beginning of the 'long' election campaign, as the final selections are made and candidates put their own local affairs in order. Including, I daresay, some of them taking to their keyboards. There'll be plenty of things to discuss, and plenty of people wanting to make their point. There'll of course be the Christmas lull, so it will be interesting to see, once everything is lined up, how people will pick up from that.

So Stuart's comment are perceptive and he may yet be proven right, but it's too early to say: the blogosphere is an unpredictable medium at the best of times, so even in this admittedly lean spell, I think there are still plenty of us with tricks up our sleeves.

For the record, there's a Scottish Roundup election special on the way (hopefully to be published at 10pm), and I'll plan to focus my energies on Twitter tonight - with more expansive notes on here as required.

In Which I Take No Pleasure In Being Right

This is what I said in November, when it was Open Season on SNP bloggers:

However, those sneering at the Cybernats, those calling this the SNP's Drapergate should realise that the loudest SNP voices in the blogosphere are a standing rebuttal to every allegation thrown at the SNP (well, I would say that, wouldn't I?) and that we are the first to wonder how to deal with those who (rightly) draw the criticism. And we should all realise that when the original Drapergate scandal hit, we all got tarnished. Every blogger, regardless of party. So if I were them, I wouldn't be dancing on the graves of these blogs or any other. Instead, I'd be standing beside them, in quiet reflection.

Why? Because we don't know which one of us could be next. Let's clean up our own houses first, before we slag off other people's.

Well, that's where Stuart MacLennan, now ex-Labour candidate for Moray comes in, and probably ex-researcher for Pauline McNeill (will Iain Gray expect her resignation as he did Mike Russell's for what Mark had written?) with a bewildering array of tweets, using assorted swearwords to describe David Cameron and Nick Clegg, but also party colleague Diane Abbott (he also talked of a 'good day to bury Stephen Byers'). He also referred to being 'stuck' in the constituency he was standing in, described people as 'chavs' (flying in the face of the class war strategy, perhaps?), referred to people who were basically his neighbours as 'Teuchters' and described the elderly as 'coffin dodgers'.

Now, I'll be honest, if politicians being called rude words is the worst thing that's ever happened to them then they've led sheltered lives. If it needs all this hysteria then frankly, our politicians do need to grow a thicker skin. You are public figures. You are not universally popular. Some people will use naughty words about you. Some will do so on the internet. Get over it.

But to slag off the elderly, and to slag off your neighbours, that's something else. And for a Parliamentary candidate to do it is beyond the pale.

As it happens, Stuart went to university around the time I did and had other foul mouthed pals (including one who was so foul-mouthed that he scarred a friend of mine for life). I also seem to recall him being in the Diagnostics Society. Now when I was at Uni, I was the Debates Convener who had to fend off accusations that the Debates Union was out of touch with... well, the rest of the universe. The Diagnostics Society, however, was in another dimension altogether. And I have to confess, my first encounter with MacLennan did not go well: he was backing a student election candidate who'd make the mistake of announcing in advance his plan to piss all over the election rules and regulations (then complained about being disqualified), a man was also the first student election candidate not to take his own nomination form around for support, having a lackey do it for him. MacLennan was the lackey in question and I, who was not well disposed to his chosen candidate anyway, sent him away with a flea in his ear. Other encounters, however, were affable enough, and I can only assume that he saw the internet in a way that so many people do, as a chance to unleash your inner tosspot.

Well, this is where it's got him.

And look at where it's got Labour: all that protesting about those nasty CyberNats, when they were harbouring their own vicious online attack dogs for far longer - and making them candidates! What will George Foulkes do now?

All that calling on Alex Salmond - who has repeatedly called on the SNP's online supporters to think about what they're posting - to crawl on his hands and knees across Scotland, begging forgiveness for what someone else with a bad mood and a laptop did when they combined the two, when Jim Murphy and Iain Gray instantly dismiss any calls for MacLennan's resignation - until they realise just what a row it's turned into!

All that demanding Mike Russell should be punished for something written by an employee who had a blog of his own - will Iain Gray punish Pauline McNeill in the way he expected the FM to punish the Education Secretary?

I take no pleasure in seeing the torpedoing of Stuart MacLennan's career. He was, at the end of it, a young, daft guy, doing a daft thing, and a wave of utterly idiotic comments have basically ruined his life. That's not something to gloat about.

And I take no pleasure in being right in my warnings that every party should be careful both in its own online dealings and how it deals with the mistakes of other parties.

Stuart thought he could carry on with his daft tweets indefinitely.

Labour thought they could carry on preaching about other people's shortcomings without any of their own coming to light. They saw the various 'CyberNats' as justification to brand the whole SNP as the nasty party - now they're tarred with their own brush. Nasty and hypocritical.

They were both proven wrong, so let me say this again, before anyone else is stupid enough to head for the pulpit about their party's online purity, or daft enough to mouth off when so many people have come a cropper for doing so:

Next time, it could be you.

Introducing the Scotblogs

As you've probably heard by now, the Scotblogs Awards have been launched, giving us a chance to celebrate some of the good stuff that's out in the Scottish blogosphere, as well as find new things we've not yet discovered.

Right now, the panel is awaiting nominations (as well as ideas for categories), and self-nominations are actively encouraged... so don't just sit there waiting for someone to spot you, get your details in so we can take a look!

So to nominate a blog, just e-mail scottishroundup+awards@gmail.com before 1800 hours on Wednesday 13 January.

After that, there's be a readers' vote along with a panel decision to select the winners, running from Thursday 14 to Wednesday 27 January.

So get your ideas in - we'd love to know what you think!

The Great Navelgaze Continues

So the blogosphere still finds itself turning inward: it seemed like normal service (or something like it) was about to resume, but then Subrosa opted to pack up for a time, citing the possibility that she was going to be the next to be outed. Fortunately, she's still active to a limited degree, but her blog has gone the way of Bruce and Mark's.

Now, I've said before that I'm instantly sceptical of any conspiracy theory. This is because the participants are ordinary human beings like the rest of us, and as we know, humans have these things called egos, which, sooner or later, will cause them to blab. The person they blab to will then blab to someone else and as quickly as it took to say "I know something you don't know," the conspiracy will unravel. Of course, David Icke's fear that everyone in charge is part of a race of twelve-foot lizard people neatly elides this, but let's be honest, if you were a twelve-foot lizard person, you'd have no reason to keep yourself secret and achieve control on the sly - you could just come out in your true form, roar, "I'm a twelve-foot lizard person, tremble before my might" and that would be that - you'd achieve total domination and the very obvious enslavement of the human race, mission accomplished, Bob's your uncle. Or at least he would be if twelve-foot lizard people have names like "Bob".

But I digress. The point I'm trying to make is that even the most hardened conspiracy-cynic such as myself must surely have noticed that, with bloggers being 'outed' (and in some cases, having their story dragged through the MSM), it really is open season on the Scottish blogosphere, and one anonymous commenter on my previous post about all this notes blatant hostility to the blogosphere on the part of the Murdoch press, something which, frankly, should surprise no one.

But the basic point is this: yes, we are under the microscope now, and as I keep saying, we have three choices. We can pack up and go home - some of us will (or have already been) forced to do that, but I don't see that as an option for the rest of us; we can fight hostility with hostility, rail against the conspiracy and descend into a dungeon of rage and inverted snobbery; or we can raise our game, answer the charges with the positive, celebrate the good things we get up to and in so doing, make the critics look like muppets, simply by proving them wrong. It's obvious, I think, which one I'd go for.

But while we consider our own reaction, let's also take a look at how this tale is moving from the scandal section to the opinion column. On the one hand, we have Iain Macwhirter, who is entirely right to say:

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.

But he undermines his point by preceding it with this:

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 demonstrated 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.

Again, that may be true on some blogs but not others, and this seems like a reprise of the points he made in the Spring which were so easily rebutted by the blogosphere simply doing what it does best. Macwhirter has, I suspect, formed his opinion of the blogosphere from two sources: the news reports tracking Drapergate and the like, and the comments after his posts on the newspaper sites. Now the scandals happened, but most bloggers were and are embarrassed by them themselves and are willing to criticise when others mess up. In that way, there is accountability: not self-policing, but mutual policing. As for the second source, well, there's some overlap between the bottom of the news pages and the blogosphere. Frankly, anyone who's spent time studying the blogosphere would have picked up on this, would have spotted the rigorous levels of analysis that can be seen and noted the generally cordial tone used by most bloggers to each other. This leads me to suspect that our friend in the Herald has come into this with a bucketload of pre-conceptions, then gone looking for the proof, rather than the full story.

Now, he has found some evidence, but there's plenty out there that challenges his assumptions and he's not quite so willing to publicly take that on board. You can tell that even when he's venturing onto his own blog, he's very wary of getting involved to any major extent, even to the degree of thinking of Now and Then as an 'anti-blog'.

Compare and contrast his approach with that of Joan McAlpine. She's thrown herself into the new media and describes it as a "learning experience" - and a positive one at that. She's concerned herself less with the likes of Comment is Free and gone straight for Twitter and an actual separate, free-standing blog of her own. Having engaged with the wider blogosphere, she's takes a broader view:

Scotland is different in that our bloggers are highly individualised. They often link to each other’s sites, even when they are on opposite sides of the political fence. So you can access Scottish Tory Boy and Soapbox, by Labour’s Kezia Dugdale, from Jeff Breslin’s SNP Tactical Voting, the most widely read political blog in Scotland. Yousuf Hamid, a loyal Labour activist in Glasgow who blogs as Yapping Yousuf, regularly allowed comments by the now maligned Wardog, the nationalist supporter who hung up his keyboard after calling the secretary of state for Scotland, Jim Murphy, a rude name.

The lack of a Slugger-type forum means it is up to individual bloggers to police themselves and anyone commenting on their site. Many take this responsibility seriously, warning that abusive and offensive comments will not appear. But it depends on what you regard as offensive. Our mainstream media culture is pretty crass these days. Jonathan Ross, who yelled obscenities into the answering machine of a grandfather, is prime-time Saturday night entertainment and enjoys a generous salary paid by the taxpayer.

And vicious personal insults are hardly new in politics. It’s almost three decades since the former US President, Lyndon Johnson, commented of the future Republican president Gerald Ford: “He’s a nice guy but he played too much football with his helmet off.”

And that's the difference. Despite being in league with that feared Murdoch press at the Sunday Times, Joan has dived right in, found out about the rest of us, and she's impressed with what she sees. Accordingly, she's able to celebrate the strengths with us and look at the reality of the problems, concluding that, when you think about it, it's not that much worse than real life (if anything, a number of bloggers - myself included - have been harsher on others than she has). Conversely, Iain sees a bunch of guys in Donnie Darko masks raging at each other.

Maybe it's another case of people seeing what they want to see. But if we're going to look at ourselves and how we do this, I'd rather we lived up to Joan's vision that lived down to Iain's. And you know what? I think we're all more than capable of doing just that.

A Third Choice

As the brief flurry of posts (well, by my standards) will probably indicate: I've revised the original plan for work-to-rule bloggery.

Why? Well, obviously, it's a big week and I'd have been mad to miss it.

But also because, while I hate thinking of posting as something I have to do, the fact is that this is a testing time for the Scottish blogosphere, and particularly the SNP end of it. Given some of the strident posts coming from all sorts of different places, it's not entirely unthinkable to suggest that a scramble for the heart (and maybe the soul) of nationalist bloggery is now on, and it's leaving us all vulnerable to any number of traps which we'll walk right into if we don't start looking where in blazes we are going.

Accordingly, socks need to be pulled up, realities need to be checked and if we have something - anything - that's remotely constructive to add, now is the time to do it. I'm back for now, and I will be writing as I prefer to do: to keep myself engaged with what's going on, and to offer my interpretation of events; to send the ideas out there and see what happens to them. No plots, no cliques, no rows, no agenda. Just me, my laptop and the news websites. As it has always been.

So I'll be getting myself out of this rut now. But as those few of you who have seen me try to get out of an armchair will attest, that might get a little bit hairy.

Ghosts of Blogs Past

You know, it's weird. In amongst all the news stories this weekend, all I can think about is one that made the headlines last June, when Right for Scotland was unmasked as former Tory candidate Ron Kane, had his reputation dragged through the mud, and ended up with some rather awkward explaining expected of him by his employers.

Remember that? It was caused, primarily, by TerryWatch (which I certainly do remember) but it wasn't even his own posts on that blog which caused the problem. Rather, it was the posts by Shotgun, whose particular role on the blog, other than making the rest of us look like complete and utter prats, is something I was never clear on. I never really figured out what his beef with Terry Kelly was - I could understand where Ron was coming on, and I sympathised totally with Clairwil's anger and we all know why he enraged me so, but I never really worked out what Shotgun was bringing to the party save our own undoing. Frankly, we should have seen the warning signs when his avatar displayed a figure making the 'wanker' gesture, but we didn't have the benefit of 20:20 hindsight on this matter at that time. Of course, when his posts arrived, and were as disgusting as they were, Clairwil decided to call it a day, with me following suit soon after.

But Ron didn't, and it was him that carried the can for Shotgun acting like a tosspot, it was him that ended up being exposed in the Sunday Herald and it was Terry Kelly who gained an easy - and undeserved - victory. Meanwhile, the real villain of the piece - Shotgun - is still free to maraud the internet acting like an arsewipe when it suits him. And it's now harder for anyone to challenge Terry Kelly's BS.

So why am I bringing that old chestnut up now, after so long? I think it's obvious really. What Ron's troubles showed us is that whether we like it or not, anonymous/pseudonymous blogging only shields your identity to a limited degree, and anyone with that bit of time and/or determination available to the professional journalist (one wonders what impact they could have if they turned their fire on politicians). Accordingly, however you refer to yourself online, you have to be very careful and 100% sure of that you say. Mark MacLachlan, who you used to know as Montague Burton, is someone I've met before and I can tell you that he is, in real life, one of the nice guys. Indeed, it's hard to believe that he's the one the papers are talking about. But he is, and the reason is that he didn't learn the lessons that were there for all of us when Ron was forced out of anonymity and into blogging retirement. Neither did Wardog, or Bruce Newlands, as we now refer to him.

And as with the RfS story, it all seems a tad warped. The really damaging posts - the allegations about other politicians - are, save the one about Colin Smyth, from ages back. And the Colin Smyth one can be corroborated or contradicted by something as simple as one eyewitness report. The so-called smear about Paul McBride QC is about one of his defence cases. The George Foulkes one, though, is something that has a tendency to amble its way through the Holyrood Village from time to time, as all sorts of racy gossip about all sorts of people has a way of popping up when a bunch of politicos are in the same room. Mark's mistake was to turn an idle rumour into a blog post. Frankly, we can all do better than that.

Firstly, if you're going to go with rumours, make them about political developments, not who boffs whom and where - that belongs in the tabloid tittle-tattle section. Secondly, if you're going to go ahead with anything lurid, make sure you have the full facts, and the evidence. a persistent rumour won't do, and the particular gem that Mark relayed to the blogosphere is one for which evidence is hard to come by. Mark would lament - as we all do these days - about the state and the standards of the Scottish MSM, but in referring to that particular tale didn't live up to the standards he was setting for the press. That's another lesson: don't attack anyone for something which you could be seen as guilty of yourself.

Then there's the insulting posts. I mean, let's face it, if saying something nasty about a politician means you have to be dragged through the streets and ritually humiliated, then what are we to do about all those politicians who have been rude to each other all these years? That last lesson I mentioned ought to apply to everyone if it's to apply to anyone. Let's all be nice, or let's all get a thick skin. Pick one, or pick the other.

That said, if you're going to insult someone, a bit of class wouldn't go amiss. Swearwords on their own are blunt instruments. A bit of charm, an element of wit or a dash of observational humour can go a long way - hell, they've made some of the nastier lines from sketch writers like Simon Hoggart some of the best to read. Just calling someone a c**t? Well, unless you're in the mother of all rages (I think I've been in one of those and done just that), it's best avoided. And if you are in the mother of all rages, it's best not to blog at all (something I've had to reflect on at times, as well).

Basically, we can do better if we think more carefully about what we're posting and why. A lot of the mistakes that have got both Mark and Bruce into such trouble could have been avoided simply by learning from the media's treatment of Ron. The worst part is that in Mark's case certainly, most of what he posted wouldn't fall foul of any of this, and he routinely ended up in the Roundup, which wouldn't touch anything overly ugly with a ten-foot pole. But he lapsed into the odd unfortunate post, and now we see the result. Yes, all this means that we have to be more careful bloggers. But that doesn't mean that we can't be better bloggers as well, putting more thought into what we say before we press 'Publish'. We could retreat into hand-wringing, we could man the barricades and blame the nasty media, we could say we're all awful people and give up, or we could take the middle path, use this difficult time to reflect on our own blogging practices, and revise them accordingly, lest the man from Johnston Press come a-knocking on our door. We could use him as proof of a conspiracy or as a political scalp, or we could, just for a minute, stop thinking like members of different, warring tribes and realise that, as I've said before, "There, but for the grace of blogs, go I". We need to cut the hysteria, ditch the hyperbole. This is a time for sobriety.

My mind also wanders back to that interview I did for Radio Scotland three years ago. They also interviewed Paul Staines - a.k.a. Guido Fawkes - who lamented that there wasn't a 'Guido McFawkes' in Scotland who could do what he did, i.e. aim a constant barrage of vitriol towards politicians, not overly dissimilar to (and, if anything, far uglier than) the one that Mark is being punished for and get away with it, on the grounds that he did very well at covering his tracks, and when he finally was unmasked, he was in a sufficiently strong position in both real life and the blogosphere that he could just continue as though nothing was going to happen. And when it does, he usually ends up winning.

What I should have said, but didn't think to at the time, was that just because the Westminster blogosphere has a Guido, it doesn't mean that the Scottish blogosphere had to copy it. That given the different political landscape, Scottish bloggers can't rely on the scene in the rest of the UK as a template and they have to find their own path. That's just as true today as it's ever been (even when Staines first floated the idea, the immediate attempt to implement it - Jenny's Stool - died a very quiet death, possibly as it was set up over the Christmas period when, frankly, nobody gave a shit) and the events of the past two Sundays prove that any attempt to emulate Guido now would be doomed to certain failure, and its architect guaranteed a rather public humiliation. There is no one who could be certain of either the power or the anonymity required to succeed, and as someone who finds the Guido approach distasteful, may I be the first to shout Hallelujah at that!

What I'm saying is this: with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight again (and let's stop using that - we've seen enough that way to get a good idea of what might be ahead), Mark was always heading for a fall, as was Bruce. And the signs were there, but they didn't see them. So those who follow that example, and go for the tittle-tattle, the gossip, the rage, should stop looking for a conspiracy, stop screaming about a plot and start looking at their own blog as well as recent history, and get to grips with the fact that they are the problem here - not the hostile MSM!

However, those sneering at the Cybernats, those calling this the SNP's Drapergate should realise that the loudest SNP voices in the blogosphere are a standing rebuttal to every allegation thrown at the SNP (well, I would say that, wouldn't I?) and that we are the first to wonder how to deal with those who (rightly) draw the criticism. And we should all realise that when the original Drapergate scandal hit, we all got tarnished. Every blogger, regardless of party. So if I were them, I wouldn't be dancing on the graves of these blogs or any other. Instead, I'd be standing beside them, in quiet reflection.

Why? Because we don't know which one of us could be next. Let's clean up our own houses first, before we slag off other people's.

A fourth birthday

I should, in a way, be celebrating: this blog has reached its fourth anniversary. I'm proud of that: I've blogged the election of David Cameron; the resignation of Charles Kennedy and the election of Ming Campbell; his own resignation and his replacement with Nick Clegg, to say nothing of the coronation of Gordon Brown. I've posted on the fall of Jack McConnell, the demise of Wendy Alexander and the elevation of Iain Gray; the end of Nicol Stephen's leadership and the beginning of Tavish Scott's; I've written about Robin Harper standing down and Patrick Harvie taking his place.

I've seen a Holyrood election; a European election; a General Election that failed to materialise; the Dunfermline & West Fife By-Election, where the LibDems snatched the seat from under Labour's nose; Moray, where the SNP got back on the front foot; Glasgow East, where the SNP pulled off a sensational victory; and Glenrothes and Glasgow North East, where it didn't.

I've found time to write about the first SNP Government, the first Budget to fall, and the passing of the first Asian MSP. And I'm satisfied with most of what I've written.

Who knows what's around the corner?

I have to say, I'm going into the fifth year of this blog in a far warier state than previous years.

Firstly, there's the demise of Wardog's blog. I'll be the first to admit that I was wary of it when it was in operation: I think I'm right in saying that Wardog migrated to the blogosphere from the scotsman.com comments section. And like a lot of bloggers, I have never been a fan of that part of the website - there always seems to be too much venom, too much bile, too much spite. And those that made the crossing brought their baggage with them - particularly Scottish Unionist, an intelligent, thoughtful writer whose blog's demise I did not mark, as he tried to bill himself as supporting the Union but then fell back on attacking Nationalism, then on attacking Nationalists (so if I were to sum up his blog in two words, I'd say "wasted potential").

So I've always held Wardog's blog at arm's length. And I suspect I wasn't the only one to see his blog and those of others from the Scotsman site in that way, to the extent that he did leave a comment praising a recent Scottish Roundup, where he hailed that week's edition as: "At last a comprehensive Scottish blog selection rather than just the usual clique."

You can sense the frustration there and I totally accept and admit to my part in creating that frustration. I'll own up now to looking at the scotsman.com commenters' blogs with the same intellectual snobbery found in the MSM when discussing the blogosphere. Frankly, that section of the blogosphere doesn't appeal to me and my instincts are to keep away from it in the main. As you'd expect from someone blogging on Scottish politics from a distance away, I often have no more than my instincts to follow and I trust them. So I've missed a lot of Wardog's offerings.

But this week, I feel for him: clearly his posts cut close to the bone on a couple of occasions but the MSM tracked down his identity and decided to do a hatchet job on him, to the extent that his job was put at risk and Wardog wisely came to the conclusion that it might be best to call it a day for now. I don't see what else he could have done. But the idea that the identity of any of us is somehow worth the time of journalists is laughable. And the prospect that a job might be put at risk for what he wrote is just plain horrifying. Frankly, I thought we lived in a country where you were allowed to have strong opinions and a job. Apparently, that's no longer the case. Shame on the Scotsman for going to town on this, and shame on Wardog's employers for deciding that expressing strong opinions beyond the work environment should call his positions into question.

And as a result of this intimidation - for that's what it is - the blogosphere has lost yet another member.

But others are going, and they're going right now.

Bucket of Tongues has gone just this week. Malc suspended operations a fortnight ago. And that's not counting the others that, in recent weeks and months, have just fizzled out. Now, that's a part of life, but there's something more troubling going on, as bloggers are now starting to openly question if the medium has a future. Jeff is beginning to talk about the death of blogging. Even Duncan, one of the Scottish blogosphere's godfathers, notes there's something of a change, citing the rise of Twitter.

Now, I tweet, but I prefer the blogosphere. Mainly as - and this post is the proof - 140 characters just aren't enough for me.

And I think that's what will keep the blogosphere going. If you want to really get your teeth into something, this is the place to do it. Blogs will come, blogs will go - we'll see another spike next Spring in time for the Election, only for all the new blogs to fall away by the autumn. The same thing will happen in 2011. Look out for a lot of blogs on local Council issues popping up - then popping down again - in 2012. The blogosphere is constantly changing, adapting to new situations, as new people come into it for all sorts of different purposes, and others leave for their own reasons. While this makes the online medium vibrant, and exciting to follow - you don't know what's round the next corner - it means that there are few constants, there are few anchors or points of reference. The blogosphere doesn't have many things to hold onto.

Which is why I have to be honest: this blog is not one of them.

A number of people mentioned as the Total Politics awards were being discussed that they'd have given me a higher ranking if I posted more often. But as I've always said, I don't subscribe to the Iain Dale approach of blogging for the sake of it, every day. In a choice between speaking because I have something to say, and speaking because I have to say something, I go for the first option on most occasions. And today has been one of the rare occasions recently where I've had a lot to chew on and plenty of time to do so.

Firstly, real life is getting in the way: this blog started when I was on the Dole, and needed something to do with all the spare time I had. Then, when I finally got a job, this blog represented a welcome change of scene and pace (and a refuge from a current dragging me into accountancy). Now, to be frank, a change is no longer as good as a rest. I'm just tired.

Secondly, and more importantly, I'm going to 'fess up to something far more troubling. You could almost call it a crisis of confidence. And it was Glasgow North East that put the spotlight on it. Not the result, or the campaign - though as you can see, I was pretty quiet about most of that. No, it was the reaction that brought things into relief. After Glasgow East and Glenrothes, I blogged my reaction at the first available opportunity. After Glasgow North East, it took me around 60 hours from the result to get the post out. That should not be happening.

So what happened? It wasn't that I was too busy, or even too tired that weekend. It wasn't that I didn't know what to make of it. I had all the ideas in my head, but I just couldn't get them into words or onto a computer screen. It was only the fact that I was doing the Sunday Whip that forced me to do that at the same time.

And that's exactly what I produced - a forced post. It wasn't an analysis, it was a box-ticking exercise, getting my reactions on record, taking a look at the main parties. I've never posted simply because I felt I had to before. And I never wish to do it again. If I can't enjoy the writing, I don't know how you can enjoy the reading.

Basically, if the feeling is that there's a paucity of posts on here, I apologise for that, but it's not going to get any better any time soon. This is the first day in a long time that I've been chomping at the bit to get to my keyboard and I don't see another day like this for a while, unless something big happens. At least, not until the General Election.

To put it bluntly, I'm questioning my wish to continue. Do I have the time/energy/creativity/imagination for this at the moment? I'm not sure anymore.

Thankfully, in case I change my mind, I have a reason to press on for now: the Whip posts. These get a surprisingly positive reaction and I do think of them as a useful service, particularly given a minority government where every vote counts and it's worth tracking who actually shows up, and which parties are working with whom on which issues. So it's a project that I'm proud of and is worth pressing on with.

But here's something that's occurred to me: what if, after 2011, there's a Coalition? What if, after that election, someone manages to cobble together a majority? At that point, almost every vote becomes little more than a foregone conclusion, and the Whip is made redundant.

So once that election is out of the way, and all of the dust has settled, that might - might - just be it for MacNumpty.

Thanks to everyone for reading for the last four years. I can be reasonably confident enough to promise you a fifth anniversary, but after that? Hopefully I'll still be able to deliver. But we shall have to see. I only wish I could be far more celebratory.

MacNumpty on your Mobile

Don't worry, I'm not hacking into your bluetooth, I've just registered with this new fad, so as to make it easier to read the blog on a phone.

Simply go here:

http://macnumpty.mofuse.mobi/

Of course, seeing as most of my posts are - how to put this? - rather comprehensive affairs, it'll still take a while to load, but comes with a lovely quick index of recent posts, and without all the bells and whistles that trying to load the web page comes with. So a rather nifty thing, I think.

Bloggers' Meets?

Apparently, a couple of people took my rather lame attempt at a title for Sunday's Roundup slightly more seriously than I anticipated, and thought that there was an actual Blogosphere Barbecue in the offing. There isn't, but there has been a realisation that some kind of meetup would be a go-er.

As such, plans are being made to hold one in Edinburgh, possibly w/c 24 August, or the week after. Details, as yet, TBC. So is my attendance, which is slightly embarrassing having been named as a member of the organising committee!

All the same, it should be good - whenever it takes place. Reports from the last general one were positive, and the last SNP Bloggers' Breakfast in Glasgow a couple of months ago was delightful. So any ideas, drop me a line.

By the way, it looks like there will be another SNP bloggers' meetup at Conference in Inverness this Autumn. Another breakfast? Something else? Again, ideas welcome...

Whither bloggery?

The political season is all but over, and so the summer provides ample opportunity for bloggers to descend into a period of navel-gazing. This is intensified all the more by the use of this time to prepare the Total Politics Guide to Blogging 2009-10, which will emerge just in time for the resumption of political hostilities and give us all something to think (or take the huff) about at our respective party conferences.

I do recommend the book when it comes out, incidentally. I have the 2007-08 and 2008-09 editions on my shelves and found them to be just the thing for whetting my appetite before the journey to Aviemore and Perth respectively. I look forward to this year's Guide getting me ready for Inverness.

But I digress. Iain Dale has been rounding up bloggers named Stephen, and seeking their input on this year's work. Consequently, Stephen Glenn has been asked to consider the state of the Scottish blogosphere and has posed a few questions for the rest of us. Here, therefore, are the results of the MacNumpty Jury:

What are the greatest successes of the Scottish blogosphere?

Two connected factors are at the heart of this. The first is more abstract: there's a sense of community that seems to transcend partisan boundaries among the main bloggers, a feeling that we're all in this together, and that despite the obvious differences we can learn things from one another, back each other up, and generally make friends to the extent that we comment on each other's Facebook status. That might seem fairly basic (or cheesy) but don't take it for granted. I recall proposals by left-wing bloggers in the Westminster-centric blogosphere that the blogging awards should be boycotted because they are the brainchild of Iain Dale. By contrast, with the exception of Terry Kelly, I've never heard anyone slag off the Scottish Roundup because of the regular editors' political beliefs. We've been accused of sexism once, and I seem to remember that we had a couple of accusations that we're invading someone's privacy (if you're nervous about having your privacy invaded, then why blog?), but the politics of the authors has never been a reason to stay away from, well, anyone's site, least of all the Roundup.

The other factor is, of course, the Roundup itself. Think about it: you have people of all political persuasions and none going through as many blogs and posts as they can (from all sorts of different angles) and picking out the best. You have people from all political persuasions and none reading the suggestions. The result of that collaboration is a nexus of ideas and perspectives, a great starting point for anyone not used to the blogosphere and wanting to explore it. It's the practical achievement of the co-operative spirit we've developed.

What are we, collectively as bloggers, failing to achieve?

Positive impact on political discourse. While some politicians are more tuned into the blogosphere than others, there's a growing problem that others almost spit the word 'blogger', as though it's pejorative. Take the row over Grant's blog, before he opted not to seek the Glasgow NE candidacy; take Kez deciding to lock her blog away for a time; take the brief stushie over some of Anne's posts when she gained her seat at Holyrood; take the regular rows over what Tom Harris posts. Also, don't forget Iain Macwhirter's brief flirtation with bloggery, and the less than consensual way in which he made his entrance to the blogosphere. There's a sense that blogs (and bloggers) are still looked down on when and where it counts: some political figures might be supportive, but the Scottish press and commentariat still pooh-pooh their online cousins, and they're the ones getting read in the papers every day. The assumptions made in the MSM regarding bloggers are mostly negative but it's up to us to do what we can to challenge those assumptions and prove that we're just as good, if not better.

Which is why, I suspect, there's been no Scottish Iain Dale figure (even though there is an Iain Dale) who has managed to use a blog as a springboard to something with a wider audience. As yet, no Scottish blogger has successfully made the journey either from or to the mainstream (though, again, at the political level, we have a handful of blogging MPs, MSPs and PPCs, which can only be a good thing).

How is the Scottish Blogosphere served by the Labour, SNP, Conservative, Lib Dems, Greens and other parties?

The SNP makes up the largest chunk of the Scottish political Blogosphere but even I have to admit that there's a chunk of the SNP Blogosphere which I side-step because a) it's broadly the same slice of people who stay up till 2 so they can be the first to rant on scotsman.com and b) as such, it's all a little bit same-y (all right, you don't like the UK Government or the UK-based political parties, we've established that, now is there anything else you'd like to add?). But like all communities, it's natural that there should be some split. Many blogs (too many to name) are must-reads, while some are more suitable for fellow travellers, or Unionists looking to either be offended or pick a fight.

Conversely, Labour and the LibDems are served by a small (but well-established) group of bloggers. Labour has Yousuf, Kez and Tom Harris (sadly, it also has Terry Kelly), while the LibDem and Scottish blogospheres would undoubtedly be weaker without Caron and Stephen. Willie Rennie's also building up his online presence.

However, the paucity of Tory and Green blogs is a problem. We have STB and James, both of whom are worth the read, but who stand in something of a desert. Yes, they offer us the Tory and Green viewpoint respectively, but let's be honest: for the blogosphere to really work, we don't want "the Tory viewpoint" or "the Green viewpoint". We need "Tory viewpoints" and "Green viewpoints"

How helpful is blogging as a campaigning tool (are there examples of it making a real impact)?

People are still coming to terms with the advantages of a blog. There was an upturn in blogging candidates in the run-up to the 2007 election but many of them tailed off afterwards. Frankly, at the moment, political opponents find blogs more useful - hence the rough ride Grant got when he wasn't even the official By-Election candidate. Further, a lot of what's out there, when it's out there, is pretty anodyne. Both Brian Adam and Cathy Peattie have what might be loosely termed a blog, but when you read them, you realise that they're basically a library of press releases - nothing worth following closely unless you write for the local paper.

By contrast, Anne (the blogger who became an MSP rather than the other way around) gets it, with a good mix of the political and the personal (with actual first-person narrative). Julie Hepburn (the SNP PPC in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) combines a campaign diary with her take on the wider political issues. Julie McAnulty uses her blog effectively to highlight her NHS and PFI-based campaigns for Holyrood and North Lanarkshire Council, as well as key health issues before and after election time. While at Council level, there are loads of examples of local representatives highlighting local issues (and often giving you an idea of what makes them tick politically), all of which are invaluable to constituents (and rounder-uppers).

What do you think the next year holds in store for the Scottish blogosphere?

It's not going to be easy. It'll grow again, as candidates look to new means of publicising their campaigns, but contract very rapidly between mid-May and early June next year, only to pick up again around next autumn as Holyrood candidate lists are finished off. The partisan rhetoric will be dialled up and there's always the chance of a row spilling over into the papers (which I think is far likelier than a blog-based scoop making the headlines).

However, the Scottish political blogosphere will be overshadowed on two sides: by the rows between the differing members of the full-time political establishment, and by the inevitable confrontation between left and right in the Westminster-centric blogosphere. Next year's version of Staines/Draper will come just in time for the General Election and will completely swamp everything else online.

I do not envisage a thousand virtual flowers blooming, in the way the Obama campaign generated so much online interest last year. Rather, I see blogs being used as attack points and our collective reputation will, rightly or wrongly, take a more severe pounding than last year.

Despite that, the potential long-term gains are there. Those that survive the storm with their reputations intact will be more credible than ever before. They will have seen off, and perhaps even disproven the MSM critiques. 2009-10 and the Westminster election will be ugly, but those who get through it unscathed will be in one hell of a position for 2010-11 and the Holyrood election. Those bloggers will have more weight having stayed above the fray and will be in a better position to get that scoop or make that crossover twelve months down the line.

Next year will be rough. There will be rows. There will be damning editorials in the papers. The environment will be more hostile but the task will be simpler: keep going. If we can do that, we'll be in a position to do far better the following year.

Competition time

Via Jonathan Calder, I'm drawing your attention to the quiz he's running over at Liberal England, where two copies of Patrick Hannan's new book, A Useful Fiction: Adventures in British Democracy are up for grabs until 2359 hours on Tuesday 7 July.

For the record, I'm hoping to have a review of the book up by this Friday (my copy arrived today and I have a very small window to read and digest it for your delectation).

Also, this week, it's the last Sunday Whip of the season, and the usual Summer Whip rundown. So three things to look forward to in the coming few days, after which the blog and blogger will follow MSPs into a state of recess for a short while...

Trouble brewing

It's amazing how things can snowball so rapidly. Iain Macwhirter's article generated a reasoned response from Yousuf and a rather hacked-off response from myself (backed up with a letter to the Herald) at a time when I'm still dealing with overwhelming feelings of shame that there are fewer than the customary six degrees of separation between myself and Derek Draper (incidentally, the other week, I was at a wedding reception with a former schoolmate of his: "a bit strange, even then" was the verdict).

Following that, Jeff wades in with a measured response, Malc links the whole issue back to the row that initiated it - namely, Drapergate - and Stephen produces a post celebrating the blogosphere's strengths. Meanwhile, Alex Massie performs the textbook fisking, going through the Macwhirter article and practically gutting it, taking it apart point by point, and responding with clear, well-presented arguments of his own.

All of these posts represent the good of the blogosphere, not the bad. All of them show that we are - get this - adult human beings capable of having an argument (not a row) and make clear points to justify our case.

Iain Macwhirter, however, disagrees with that analysis, and has dusted off his blog in order to say so. In so doing, he fulfils his own prophesy, playing the man rather than the ball, making no attempt to actually engage on the issues or the points raised and opting for comments that are frankly uncalled for, and unworthy of one of Scotland's sharpest political commentators.

I had initially wondered if Macwhirter was trying to use irony to prove a point. But his follow-up suggests that the joke has gone horribly wrong, or he was actually being serious. Which begs the question, what is he playing at?

Three ideas spring to mind.

Firstly, it's possible that despite what he says, he didn't actually expect the response, that he thought his article would pass by un-noticed or that we'd all line up to admit how rubbish we all are. Therefore, his response has something of the cornered animal about it, lashing out at his attackers. But that doesn't measure up: why would he make that mistake in the first place, and why would he waste such time and energy responding?

Secondly, it maybe that his article, its response and his follow-up were all attempts to prove a point about the blogosphere. In which case, it's possible that we're playing into his hands but even so, he's still doing more on his own part to show the blogosphere as a venomous pit of hatred in his post. The bloggers have simply taken him to task for a poor article based on faulty premises, and have shown themselves at their best. Macwhirter has seen the Draper/Guido row, seen the blogosphere as a place where people's darker impulses get a run out and is aiming to prove this. Even if he's the proof. But just a quick analysis of the Scottish blogosphere - where most of the reaction has been - shows that, in the main, we can all get along with each other (though there are exceptions). While Macwhirter thinks that we may be proving his point, the response by bloggers lends itself more to my argument that we do challenge inaccuracies and we do go after lapses of taste. That we are now placing Macwhirter under the microscope says more about his distorted view of bloggery than it does about us. So this may be what he's doing, but the blogosphere's response actually serves to undermine his point.

The last possibility is that he is eyeing up a presence on the blogosphere - and he would be a welcome addition were that the case. Yet he comes to it from an odd angle: while most of us just start blogging, and develop a following over time, he already has the status and could easily bring it online - if he gets involved fully in the blogging community, that's a mouth-watering prospect for all of us. But he's making all the mistakes that Draper - who is in a similar position - made: he has misjudged the blogosphere very badly, and there's a patronising tone that grates with us. Even now, he still doesn't get it: he thinks that by attacking Alex Massie he'll be welcomed into the club, just as Draper thought that by starting a flamewar with Iain Dale and Paul Staines, he could create a left-wing blogging movement that people could rally around. It doesn't work like that. He has misjudged his audience. If this is an entry into the blogosphere, and if Macwhirter has started as he means to go on, then strange as it sounds for one of Scotland's best political analysts, I don't envisage him making it into many Roundup. Could we have John Curtice instead?

You'll notice that I keep using superlatives to refer to Macwhirter. I used to believe them, but the way he's approached this subject is grim, and none of the possible conclusions regarding what he's up to leave his standing with me intact. I suspect a few other people feel the same, but he doesn't nned to worry about that: he has his wider readership.

And that's the scary thing: through his writings, they're getting a false impression of a creative activity. My name is on my site, because I'm proud of what I post and I want my name to be put to it. I've even used examples from it as part fo a portfolio which I submitted for a job I've applied for - that's how much I care about this. I get a buzz when I'm producing good work and I feel hacked off when it seems like I'm simply going through the motions. Could I - could any blogger - truly feel like that if this were so squalid?

That's why we need to respond. We put our hearts into this, all of us. It should not be undermined by two unhinged spin doctors, a right-wing gossip merchant and a bandwagon-jumping pundit.

I do not intend this post to be the response or the rebuttal to Macwhirter's assertions, merely my take on where we are now. The response is the blog itself, and the blogger. By being the positive side of the blogosphere, we will prove ourselves right in the end.

She's Back!

As you're now no doubt aware, Kezia Dugdale has returned to the blogosphere, and I for one am delighted to welcome her back!

Of course, I didn't agree with a lot of what she posted, and there were the occasional moments at outright fury, but she's always been readable and she possesses those rare gifts: getting noticed, and getting people talking. Towards the conclusion of Soapbox I, she seemed to start thinking that those weren't all that great, whereas I reckon they're pretty much essential for a top blog.

The small tone of disappointment comes when she says she's going to be "a bit smarter" with how, when and what she posts. "Smarter" sounds to be a synonym for "cagier" and I think that's a retrograde step: the best posts are the ones when you just go for it, in my opinion. I hope she won't be too offended when I say that Soapbox I got a little repetitive near the end and the point that she wasn't a big fan of the SNP got a little laboured at times - though every partisan blogger is occasionally guilty of overegging the political pudding. And I'm looking forward to the wider variety of post she's talking about. If Kez can surprise us every now and then - and I bet she can - then she'll have cracked it. All she needs to do then is enjoy taking to the keyboard again - and I'm certain she will...

Welcome back, Kez!

Bloggers' Association again

A whie back, I floated the idea of a Scottish Blogging Association, a suggestion got a couple of comments, but not all that much interest, unless people were thinking "Yes! When are you going to take it forward?", in which case, this would be a good time for me to answer, "Oh, bugger."

Anyway, the reason I've opted to revisit it now is this post by Welsh Tory Eurocandidate Evan Price, via Iain Dale (the Tory one, that is), which notes the threat bloggers face from more litigious readers, and suggests almost a sort of Trade Union (Tory sacrilege, surely!) to act as a mutual defence fund against malicious lawsuits. Dale himself is sceptical, on the grounds that bloggers are just too individualistic.

Personally, I think the reason that Evan Price comes up with is worryingly defensive, but in the wake of the Alex Hilton row, it's also rather prescient. However, even that wasn't a black-and-white issue, as the comments I received on the matter show. I envisioned an association being more capable of driving forward and securing an almost mainstream-status for bloggers (and it's interesting how I view mainstream as something to aim for, while Iain Dale, the blogger who has crossed into the mainstream more than any other on this side of the Atlantic, uses the term in a less positive light). I still think it could work, but I've considered a number of obstacles that we'd have to address.

Firstly, in terms of the Price proposals, on what level would an association be formed? A UK-wide one? I know that given my politics, I'd have trouble signing up to that. It sounds petty, but what would you expect? I've posted time and again in support of independence, and my view of British identity as a myth, so it would be slightly ridiculous (and hypocritical) on my part to sign up to a newly created British institution. I suspect that would be the case for a fair chunk of the SNP blogosphere and given what a significant chunk of the Scottish political blogosphere is formed by SNP voices, that would weaken a UK organisation right from the start: a group that SNP bloggers had trouble with wouldn't be as effective at supporting and defending the Scottish blogosphere as one that included them from the start; a UK-wide organisation that had only a very weak Scottish arm which didn't reflect the full range of opinions in Scotland - or Wales, for that matter - wouldn't really be a "British" organisation either, but an English one with a few addenda. That could even exasperate Unionist voices.

So that would leave us with an association for each of the nations. Now, I could go with that, and the four bodies could still co-operate on an informal basis, but then, the associaitons would inevitably adopt different approaches - which defeats the object of collectivity do a degree - and what's the point in setting up formal structures, if at another level, we revert to informality?

And on that point, that another look at the Alex Hilton case. Individual bloggers signed up to support him, and publicise the case. He got a body of people out there, on his side, without a formal structure. The same is true during the Usmanov affair. And of course, let's not forget the Scottish and BritBlog Roundups. While these are clearly collective works, they're not formal associations but they are very much important, successful parts of the blogosphere (though, interestingly, the Scottish one may arguably be evolving into that and the way it's happening is only serving to enhance the Roundup). So the status quo can work - though the Roundup may end up showing that a change can work better.

But the point that does worry me is that of the team dynamic. A couple of commenters over at Iain Dale ask what'll happen if one strong personality or group of bloggers takes control. Frankly, that's the least of my worries (though being the minority voice in the wilderness is never fun. For me, the bigger trouble is what happens if you have two or more strong personalities: sooner or later, they'll enter a state of clash, and whoever wins, the association would lose. If this can be avoided, we have a way of making things work.

There's also another couple of random questions: firstly, what of expats? From a strictly Scottish perspective, I'm one of those: I'm blogging from an address in England but this blog is unashamedly Scottish and focuses on Scottish politics, with occasional meanderings into European politics, and Scottish football. Now there's always a part of me that would happily turn the blog into a Wigan Athletic fanzine, but that's another story. But what would be the criteria for membership of an association, on either a Scottish or UK level?

Finally, what happens if membership requires firm commitments of time and/or money? I've delayed the EuroCountdown to write about another few things that have turned my head (I'm going to start doing that feature as and when, rather than just on a Sunday - keep looking out for it!). I know from my perspective that one bad week, and everything would get dropped, and I suspect it's the same for many bloggers.

Plus which, I bear the scars from working with the Socttish Students' Debating Council when I was at Uni, and that asked for firm commitments, which various institutions - especially my own - would piss all over at the drop of a hat. Not out of malice, but out of the fact that everyone was either busy or skint. But still, we faced rows from various quarters, with people asking how hard it was to get four people on a bus to University X for their competition. Of course, when we held ours, a number of institutions couldn't make it, and I remarked that I was sorry for them that they were missing a good weeking, only for the same voice that insisted how easy it was to find four willing people to travel on any weekend of the year to grumble that it was our fault for holding the tournament on a date they couldn't make. At that point I felt that for such breath-taking hypocrisy, the individual in question might be better off in the Let's Bitch At Edinburgh Association, but there you go.

But I digress. The point I'm making is that when you put commitments into the equation, some may struggle to meet them - and start to resent them - while those who tick every box will end up resenting the ones that don't. We have to think about that.

So those are the issues that I see standing in the way of an association. How do we beat them? On what level do we organise? It is even worth it? Would you join if we did?

Answers, as always, on a postcard. Or better yet, a comment.

Shoulder to Shoulder

Although I disagree with his initial, somewhat hyperbolic, line that "There is a crisis at the heart of the blogosphere", I was intrigued and alarmed to read Yapping Yousuf's latest post, concerning Alex Hilton's LabourHome site.

Recently, a post was left by someone else on the site, concerning a former Labour activist, who switched to Respect, and then to the Tories (unnh?). That person complained about the post, and it was deleted ASAP. Alex Hilton then offered them the right of reply on the frontpage of his blog. The offer was declined.

Instead, the subject of that post is now suing both its author and Alex Hilton for defammation.

Now, Hilton has taken legal advice, and the signs look good. However, he is unlikely to recoup his legal costs, and if he does lose, he will find himself looking at the wrong end of a five-figure compensation claim he cannot afford.

Now, as I said, I don't take Yousuf's view that it is a crisis. Rather, I am of the opinion (and I have placed that word 'opinion' in there for legal purposes as I cannot be sued for having an opinion) that the claimant has spat the dummy out, and it has reached a lawyer's office. This is, in my belief (see above), a very expensive temper tantrum, entirely unwarranted given Hilton's response to the situation.

Nevertheless, while I don't agree with the word 'crisis', I do agree with Yousuf's words here:

This has massive ramifications for us all. Imagine if I write a post about Labour in Glasgow Central. Someone then writes a comment about one of the SNP activists in Govanhill. I remove the comment after a complaint and then we both get sued!!

The situation could easily be reversed: I could write about Ochil & South Perthshire, someone could comment on a Labour activist there, I could act to remove the comment and still find myself dealing with a lawsuit. It is happening to Alex Hilton. It could happen to Yousuf, myself, or anyone next time. It's not a crisis yet, but it could become one.

I'm all for accountability in the blogosphere, but that comes by scrutinising the blog (and, if need be, the blogger), and a process that is almost Darwinian: the well-written blogs, which get a lot of care and attention put into them, thrive, the weak ones perish. Where someone publishes a false accusation about someone, then the author deserves to be challenged, and the person running the website (if that's a different person) needs to taken action to correct matters amicably. Alex Hilton did that. This lawsuit now is, in my opinion, the most vile form of petty vindictiveness, and an attempt to break a man, whose only role in this was to set up a site to promote the political party he supports, and reolve a dispute sensibly. He does not deserve this.

Alex is, as you can imagine, seeking help in his fight. And he's turned to the blogosphere for that support: he needs a defence fund and he needs it now. You can read his side of the story, and donate to that fund here.

I have read it, and I have donated, and here's why: whatever your politics, you can agree that no one deserves what Alex is now going through. And more importantly, while this on its own isn't a crisis, it is the first blast of the trumpet. It's bad enough that a responsible blogger who promotes openness on his site should be victimised for what other people leave there. It's worse still that the victimisation should continue despite him making all the right moves. It's diabolical that he should then be sued because of it. And if that precedent is set, that's when we have the crisis. That is, bascially, when the whole existence of the blogosphere becomes pointless, with bloggers constrained, unable to let commenters on just in case, or worse, restricting their own views to avoid a chat with a lawyer.

We must help nip this in the bud today, by getting our hands in our pockets. Or it could be any of us tomorrow, facing a far larger bill.

That's why I'm standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Alex, Yousuf and Iain Dale to name but three.

Stand with us.

MacNumpty is 3

Yesterday, it transpires, was the third anniversary of this blog, which I opened with a post on the Thatcher legacy, and another on a row between Jack McConnell and the Home Office.

It's been some three years for my subject matter: the Dunfermline By-Election, which humiliated Labour; the Moray By-Election, which started the SNP ball rolling all the way to Bute House; the Election itself, of course; the establishment of the SNP Government; Gordon Brown's ascent to the Premiership; Labour's leadership travails at Holyrood; the Election that wasn't; the Glasgow East By-Election; and more recently, Glenrothes.

And it's been some three years for the blog (and the blogger): things started with the newly-installed Tory Leader of South Ayrshire Council contacting me regarding the change of Leadership there; being interviewed on Radio Scotland as the voice of Scottish bloggery; getting the chance to help out at the Scottish Roundup; getting involved with the ill-fated Terrywatch; and now having a monthly contribution in the Welsh publication Barn - I'll be producing the original versions of the articles at some point.

So all in all, it's been fun. Year 4 is shaping up to be a good one as well...

Scottish Labour and the Blogosphere

Following on from last month's post about the SNP in the blogosphere, and with Hazel Blears attacking bloggery tonight, I thought I'd consider Labour's role in online politics.

Firstly, the obvious point to make is how few regular Labour blogers there are: with Kez's retirement, and the death of Elizabeth Maginnis, the core of the Labour blogosphere in Scotland is reduced to five: Ewan Aitken, Andrew Burns, Yousuf Hamid, Tom Harris and, unfortunately for the party, Terry Kelly. There are others but their contributions are fewer and further between. And Councillor Kelly's status as a pariah of the blogosphere notwithstanding, only Tom Harris comes close to the 'star' status that Kez had online. Yousuf is definitely the one to watch: his posts are readable, thoughful and respectful, but most importantly, he's the first Labour blogger I've seen who more often than not puts across the case for Labour, rather than falling back on "Alex Salmond/Steve Cardownie/David Cameron Ate Your Hamster".

But that's the thing. The blogosphere has started building him up as the next big thing, which is probably right and ought to be encouraging, but it's also dangerous. Kez emerged as a sort of Leader of Labour in the Scottish Blogosphere and as such became something of a lightning rod, no doubt encouraging the fellow travellers but also attracting the critics from the other side, in massive numbers. And of course, it's the critics who are more likely to speak up - that's a fact of life.

And with Kez leaving the blogosphere, that left a vacuum at the heart of Scottish Labour's online presence. But nature abhors a vacuum (that's why my dog attacks the hoover) and so the spotlight has shone on Yousuf. He gets the readers, he gets the following, but in time, he'll have to put up with the headbangers as well. And that might, understandably, put him off. We might build him up (though his own growing reputation as a reputable blogger will help as well), and we may well do so with the best of intentions, but round the corner are those who'll want to knock him down again. (And why does a political movement need an online "Leader" anyway? Doesn't that miss the point somehow?)

Perhaps it's a reflection at how few Labour bloggers there are that we get all excited when one arrives on the scene. But perhaps it's the treatment that was meted out to Kez that discourages others from getting their keyboards out. Maybe we need a little less fanfare when we see new Labour bloggers, so they feel like they're joining a community that's at ease with itself, rather then being placed in a zoo enclosure.

I wish I could answer that one, but I've been considering it for a few weeks and haven't found one yet.

But there's another point: the top of the Labour establishment seems to have a contempt for bloggery which must surely discourage members from getting involved. This is Hazel Blears:

There are some informative and entertaining political blogs, including those written by elected councillors. But mostly, political blogs are written by people with a disdain for the political system and politicians, who see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy.

Unless and until political blogging adds value to our political culture, by allowing new and disparate voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair.

Let me take a look at that: some blogs are written by the cynics, but most of those involved are fascinated at the political process. Some get overly excited by it, including yours truly. And if bloggers get wind of a scandal or conspiracy, of course they're going to post about it. That's what happens, and it's not a new phenomenon, that's grown up with Web 2.0. People have been able to write about things like this for as long as they've been able to write. And they've been able to speak about them for as long as they've been able to speak.

And the thing is, the blogosphere is all about new, disparate voices and new ideas. It's all about legitimate protest, debate and challenge. And this is the odd thing about what Blears has said: she's blaming us for talking about scandals, conpiracies and hypocrisy. She's saying that our discussions on those are why people are cynical. Here's a wacky thought - maybe it's the fact that there are scandals that's the problem! When we see Peter Mandelson (and, indeed, George Osborne) on a yacht with Oleg Deripaska, and ask what's going on, the source of the failure isn't Guido, or whoever is posting about it. The hit to the political process takes place the minute Mandelson or Osborne boards the boat. Reporting a conspiracy doesn't devalue the political process, the conspiracy does that. Complaining about a politician being hypocritical doesn't create cynicism, it reflects the cynicism created by that politician's hypocrisy. So the blogosphere's cry of "O tempora, o mores" isn't the problem: it's a reflection the time of cynicism that we live in, and a lament at the customs in political life. But Blears has decided that rather than blaming the person who's hand has been caught in the till, she'll attack the person who catches them.

And when you get a Labour Government Minister slating blogs just for being, rather than noting that the anti-Labour online majority needs to be counter-balanced by a strong Labour presence, is it any wonder that Labour members aren't overly willing to head to the keyboard?

And while I'm here, one more thing about Blears:

And in recent years commentary has taken over from investigation or news reporting, to the point where commentators are viewed by some as every bit as important as elected politicians, with views as valid as cabinet ministers.

My, my, haven't we got big for our boots? What are us proles thinking, believing that our opinions are just as valid as Cabinet Ministers? Good grief, how can we possibly think ourselves in any way equally capable of coming to an opinion on world events than the übermenschlich Geoff Hoon? Don't get me wrong, I'd like nothing better than to see Jon Gaunt or Jeremy Clarkson treated as toxic waste, encased in concrete and buried underground for 10,000 years, but there's a dangerous principle woven into the choice of words used by Blears: she is arguing that someone's views (i.e. hers) are automatically superior to someone else's, and that your opinions don't count for toffee until you've been elected to something or appointed a minister. Never mind that our opinions determine who gets elected. Never mind that her argument actually makes the opinions of Baroness Royall (the Leader of the House of Lords) leass valid at the Cabinet table than Yvette Cooper's.

No, the idea that the valiity of your opinions is determined by the job you do or the background you have, as opposed to the principles you apply and the reasoning behind your opinion has gone out. It belongs to an age that is no longer with us. But still, Blears holds on to the concept of a stratified society that we were supposed to have left behind in 1997.

We are all human beings, with the capability of independent thought. And Blears claims she wants to see exactly in the blogosphere, which is dominated by the right. But not if you think something she doesn't want you to think, it seems.

Has this way of thinking crept into Labour? Is the fear of appearing presumptuous, or suggesting that it's OK for us plebs to speak out, what's putting off the Labour bloggers? I hope not. I hope this is just the brain of Hazel Blears at work, not the ethos of Labour and its members these days.

So Labour members, let Hazel think her thoughts of a class system at which she's at the top and everyone else just has to shut up. But think your own thoughts, and put them where we can all see them. We all have a right to Hazel's opinions, but we have a right to mine and yours as well. What do you think? Start up a blog, and tell the world!