How low can you go?

Some people are so staunchly opposed to an idea that, to the observer, it seems to completely destroy their judgment of right and wrong. Fanatics. People who are too angry to discuss the issue normally, that is to say they wouldn’t think twice about calling someone, they disagree with, a Nazi 10 seconds in.

Online, they hapily hurl personal abuse, make all kinds of ridiculous, cretinous, statements with the basic aim of affecting a reputation and/or a person’s normal use of social media. It happens all round the world on whatever platform people give their opinions.

A particularly odious and recurring example of this kind of thing is the many gutless attempts to smear, SNP Westminster group leader, Ian Blackford. The attempts to link him, somehow, with the tragic death of Charles Kennedy.

Anti-independence fanatic, former Labour MP, Brian Wilson’s dubious claim was all the more surprising if you actually read the rest of his August 2018 Scotsman article. The article is regularly shared on twitter by all the usual, fanatical, Unionist accounts precisely because it seemed to be trying to draw that, exact, direct line.

The same line these characters have tried to draw, without actually coming out and directly saying so, for some time.

Let’s look at the people doing the smearing and their evidence.

| A Daily Mail reporter, there, lacking the courage to clarify his accusation. Grant works for a paper that ran multiple stories about Charles Kennedy’s love life.

THE BRITISH PRESS

With the coverage Charles Kennedy regularly received in UK newspapers you might expect someone who works for a British tabloid to observe a reflective silence about his death. But Unionist writers like Graham Grant and Brian Wilson instead attempt to ‘claim the moral high ground’ and point their grubby fingers at Ian Blackford.

| ‘Spineless reptile’ or ‘poisonous snake’?

| Kennedy’s alcohol problem was widely commented on. And not in an sympathetic way

| The salacious stories about Kennedy’s private life continued after his death

| Kennedy’s alcoholism was regularly mocked. He was called a ‘traitor’ in the right wing British press, because he was against illegal invasion of Iraq.

KENNEDY’S OWN PARTY

Then there’s the Lib Dems, themselves. Sir Ming Campbell, evidence free, accused the SNP of running a ‘despicable’ campaign in the Ross, Skye and Lochaber to beat Kennedy. Which is more than a bit rich when senior Lib Dems ran a pretty vicious, even despicable, campaign, briefing the media against Kennedy (dealing with personal problems) in their determined attempts to oust him as leader.

During the infamous campaign Campbell refers to, the local Lib Dem branch was so hostile to their SNP opponents, they refused cake because it had been made by Nats. It’s probably not that unreasonable to presume the obvious rancor might’ve led to some bitter accusations being thrown around after their defeat and, worse, Charles’ death.

Years before, when Andrew Neil claimed, on air, to have it “on good authority” that Kennedy would announce his resignation at the upcoming Lib Dem conference. It was a Machiavellian lie designed to push the struggling Kennedy towards quitting and his spokeswoman was forced to deny the report. She made a complaint to the BBC, for broadcasting it. That good authority was, naturally, a senior Lib Dem source.

Kennedy’s Lib Dem colleagues complained to journalists about a ‘lack of leadership’ and told them that he had to ‘raise his game’ or resign. His Lib Dem colleagues signed letters and even petitions to have him removed. Eventually, worn down, he did resign. It was Ming Campbell who replaced him.

| “A point came at which it became clear that it was in the best interest of Charles and in the party’s interest that he should stand down”. -Sir Ming Campbell

THE ‘EVIDENCE’ FOR THE SMEAR

| The assembled evidence presented by the British press amounted to two unpleasant tweets. Note the distinct absence of Ian Blackford.

The main accusation thrown at Blackford involves the use of a twitter hashtag “#wherescharlie?” relating to Kennedy’s alleged poor attendance at debates and surgeries. The actual evidence that is presented, however, is embarrassingly scarce and doesn’t include anything Blackford said or did himself.

Two tweets were definitely unkind, but hardly extreme examples. Contrast this with all that came at Kennedy from his own Party and from the British press. Were those two tweets really worse?

Contrast too Unionists making accusations about things said online with the cesspool to be found in Unionist twitter. A glimpse at the, much more vicious, abuse heading Blackford’s way everyday, for example, would be a good start. Who’s to blame for all that? Which Unionist politician or party? Or, maybe, that’s a stupid and unfair question to ask about Unionists.

A sad end

| The post-mortem found the likable former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy had died of a ‘major hemorrhage’ at his home in Fort William, that was ‘a consequence of his battle with alcoholism’.

If you read honest accounts of the story, not written by fanatics like Brian Wilson, you find out that at the time of his death Charles Kennedy had recently suffered the genuine grief of losing his father as well as a close friend. He was understandably struggling, but, he was talking about going to the House of Lords and of campaigning for a Remain vote in the EU referendum. That is not a man upset by some tweets.

Contrary to the Unionist press narrative, nothing in the election campaign of 2015 was even nearly as bad as the things he’d dealt with before – from his own party or from the newspapers. Yet they smear Blackford.

Charles Kennedy’s tragic death was linked to long standing alcoholism (a national issue the Government is trying to address with measures like minimum unit pricing). Those making sordid, false, allegations, in the base hope of unfairly damaging the reputation of their political opponents should reflect hard. And climb out of the sewer.