Clipping Wings

Yesterday the blogger Wings Over Scotland got banned from Twitter. He was subsequently reinstated, but, given the prominence of his pro-Independence blog in the Scottish online political scene, the situation prompted a lot of comment and debate.

Wings is no stranger to controversy of course. On this particular occasion it seems he was banned following complaints by a journalist from the Daily Express about tweets he made regarding one of her articles. I won't re-iterate the whole affair. If you are not already familiar with it you can read about it here , and get Wings' side of the story here, here and here.

Opinion about this ban seemed evenly divided on both sides of the Scottish Independence debate. I'll offer my own in a moment.

Some unionists adopted an approach of "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it," while others revelled with almost fascistic glee that this venomous thorn had been plucked from their sides, and launched campaigns of invective and vitriol more severe than anything that had prompted the original censure.

Similarly, on the pro-Independence side of the debate, there were voices raised in concern that a large, influential publication like the Daily Express, backed by unaccountable offshore corporate interests, could apparently lean so easily on a social media forum like Twitter, while others pointed out the problematic nature of Wings' contributions in general and expressed a sense of relief that someone who, as they see it, was letting the side down, had had his knuckles rapped.

Some of what Wings does is fine, exposing instances of hypocrisy along the lines of Private Eye or Guido Fawkes say, but his language is intemperate and he over-personalises issues. He has a large audience because he gives a voice to long-standing frustrations with systematic media bias and misrepresentation. He does not fulfil the responsibility not to be inflammatory that comes with this.

So he does represent something of a headache for the pro-independence community. I appreciate these concerns, but at the same time, rather than simply complaining and condemning him, they should be making him unnecessary. I remember the first time I encountered Wings, feeling "at last, someone is taking the time to thoroughly and publicly debunk the nonsense routinely put out by the press about Scotland." And I can't help but think that an element of jealously is involved in some quarters.

It could be argued he would not have his audience if he was not confrontational. From that point of view the comparison is not with Private Eye or Guido Fawkes, but with provocative, deliberately controversial tabloid columnists. Compared to them he is rather mild. Look at a Wings comments thread then a comments thread in, say, the Daily Mail, then point out for me the baying mob. I agree with many of his critics, but wish they would be more specific. If you have a problem with him, please take as much time and effort as he does to point out the offending words. On this occasion, to censure him for challenging, in relatively measured terms given this context, what are verifiable lies that incite hate and violence printed in a widely circulated newspaper, is to pick the wrong battle.

It's like having a hacker on your team. Sometimes he does loft a great pass into the box for you, but other times he does your side no good at all with some of his tackles. Sometimes you just wish he wasn't on the pitch. Nevertheless, you don't rejoice when you see him sent off for what was a blatant dive by one of the other side's dirtiest players. Sure, maybe he would benefit from being sent off sometimes. But not for this.