The Wee Ginger Dug’s nose shows the way as another of the SNP’s ‘critical friends’ gets lost ‘looking for a landing’ when he should be raising a ‘hue and cry’ about something that might undermine the Tories

‘Scot of the Year? Not once has he [David Mundell] stood up for Scotland’ (Paul Kavanagh)

‘Surgeon’s difficult balance: Go Green or get in bed with the Tories’ (Paul Kane)

 Since my earlier attacks on the supposed ‘critical friends’, I’ve had a lot of flak from other independence supporters. My suggestion that self-declared, happy to be associated (?), ‘BBC Community Reporter 2012-Present’, Kirsty Strickland who wrote: ‘Why anti-BBC billboards are a terrible idea before indyref 2’ should be concentrating on the main target and not attacking the Inform Scotland billboards. Also, in a piece mildly sympathetic to the BBC, she should have declared her current connections with them (see ref below). This even resulted in accusations of sexism! That’s just stupid. I’ve read her many other articles on women’s rights and can recommend them fully. This is not personal. See the Linkedin details below. I’ve had several much more polite, reasoned and very long comments but I’m not reading them. I’ve got better things to do with my limited energies. If you must know, I want to do a textual comparison of STV and BBC reporting on this alleged NHS ‘crisis’ and associated mania. For some reason, I sort of want to spend my time arguing about why the SNP leadership are so kind to the Queen. That really pisses me off but I know I’d be better sticking my head up my own arse, as some ‘critical friends’ do, for all the good it would do at the moment

Today, 29.10.16, in the National, we had the above two stories, both pretty long but in the case of Pat Kane’s, bloody long! I skimmed it and noted the final, ‘This one [conversation] starts now!’ Aye right, so it does. Haven’t people been talking about this for some time long before Pat pressed his starter to launch the national (not just the newspaper of that name) debate? Was that just a wee bit ‘heid-the-baw?’ Anyway only 20% at most read beyond the headlines. How many read the whole thing especially massive pieces like this on the third Heathrow runway and how it might affect the SNP? Damn few is my guess. Book a telephone box for the focus group.

As always, the other Paul is in dogged pursuit of the real target, now that Labour has died, the Scottish Tories. Like most wee terriers he can’t take his eye off the ball.

_____________________________________________________Kirsty Strickland

Broadcast Media Professional

Glasgow, United Kingdom

Broadcast Media

Current 1.      BBC Television

View Kirsty’s full profile. It’s free!

Your colleagues, classmates, and 400 million other professionals are on LinkedIn.

View Kirsty’s Full Profile


Community Reporter

BBC Television

2012 – Present (4 years)



17 thoughts on “The Wee Ginger Dug’s nose shows the way as another of the SNP’s ‘critical friends’ gets lost ‘looking for a landing’ when he should be raising a ‘hue and cry’ about something that might undermine the Tories

  1. Clydebuilt October 29, 2016 / 1:22 pm

    Balanced Journalism Scottish Style Excellent letter in the National, terrible article in the Herald, by one of the so called “Critical Friends”. IMHO this scribbler has moved on from being a CF to out right enemy of the Scottish Government. As GAP calls it, this week’s agenda has been the NHS, so McKenna sticks the boot right in.

    Liked by 1 person

    • johnrobertson834 October 29, 2016 / 6:39 pm

      Spot on. If I wasn’t sickened by the thought I’d suggest he was a naked mole.


  2. cdrfuzz October 29, 2016 / 9:46 pm

    Difficult to do now as she’s suspended her Twitter account, but Kirsty Strickland explained her work as a “community reporter” for the BBC in a series of tweets on the day her long-defunct LinkedIn page was shared on Twitter. The gist: she did a short-term, unpaid internship with the BBC four years ago. She can’t remember setting up the LinkedIn profile, and suspects it may have been a part of the internship. All of this could have been determined very easily, had those seeking to lazily discredit her as a bbc stooge, rather than deal with her arguments civilly and maturely, done the most basic due diligence and *asked her* about it. It’s ironic that people who cast themselves as press watchdogs, and work to expose underhand tactics used by news outlets to undermine certain political parties and movements, are so quick to stoop to similar unethical practises when someone presumes to disagree with their campaign tactics. Personally, I never detected a sexist motive in the effort to discredit Kirsty (although, as man, I will never really understand the experience of women who choose to contribute to public fora), but I am struck by the dishonesty of it, the lack of integrity and obvious cowardice of such a transparent attempt to play the player, and not the ball.


    • johnrobertson834 October 30, 2016 / 8:43 am

      She has had time to take it down. It was still there yesterday. How can that be ‘long-defunct?’ It’s perfectly understandable that I and others are disturbed by it. And, are you suggesting that I am a coward? If so, how about you stand up for something and risk your career or anything I suppose, for it?


      • Kirsty Strickland October 30, 2016 / 10:59 am

        Long-defunct as in it was blindly obvious from the no profile picture, information and 0 connections that it wasn’t in use. ”She has had time to take it down” – Yes, which involved me firstly trying to ascertain which old email address it was linked to to reset the password. None of them, it seems. So I then spent time on the LinkedIn live chat trying to explain this ridiculous situation to them. No luck there either. So I’ve had to send over a copy of my passport & information to try and gain access to it to try and remove it.

        I hope that the continued existence of a 4-year old LinkedIn page that has nothing to do with you isn’t causing you too much concern. Not now I have repeatedly explained what common-sense should have shown anyway. I don’t work for the BBC. I never have worked for the BBC. I took part in an unpaid 6-week trainee scheme in 2012.

        Did you see my article on the front page of The National last week? Where I directly criticised BBC Scotland & Call Kaye? Did you see the one for CommonSpace the week before that?

        Can you see *any* irony in claiming that I should be ”focusing on the main target” in an article where you are focusing your attention on a Pro-Yes, part-time, unpaid writer for having the audacity to not realise that there was an old LinkedIn profile floating around the internet?

        Are you ”focusing on the main target” where you are linking to information about me that I have said – repeatedly – is out of date?

        If you accept that I don’t work for the BBC, and that an old LinkedIn page that has clearly been set up and then never used again isn’t a crime against humanity – then what is the point of this?

        I’ve never felt so unwelcome in Yes as I do at this time. But that won’t change my vote. I am a Yes supporter because I want Scotland to be run by the party we choose. I believe an Independent Scotland can help facilitate real social change – if we make the right decisions.

        But gies a break – none of this has anything to do with Indy. It is a simple case of a disagreement of opinions which has turned into trying to discredit me and my intentions.

        ”Focus on the main target” – winning IndyRef2? Yes, lets do that.


      • johnrobertson834 October 31, 2016 / 11:17 am

        OK, I never doubted you were a good and genuine writer. I accept what you say about linkedin now but it did look dodgy at the time and you wouldn’t be the first I’ve known keen for work with the BBC to keep the wolf from the door yet despising them. I stand by my point that if independence is number one priority then there is no time for debating other supporters’ strategies just because you think (cannot know) they are flawed.


      • cdrfuzz October 30, 2016 / 8:57 pm

        I believe she mentioned not being able to remember the account login details – something to do with the account being disused for four years (i.e. being defunct). Again, you would know this if you done the decent and responsible thing and asked her about it before casting aspersions. And yes, irrespective of the risks you have taken with you career in the past, seeking to lazily discredit someone, rather than (or even in addition to) dealing with their arguments on their merits is a dishonest and cowardly act. Even brave people are capable of cowardice from time to time. The decent thing to do now would be to recognise your error, withdraw the false accusation and apologise.


  3. Clydebuilt October 30, 2016 / 10:37 pm

    Just read The article in the Sunday Herald by the Editor of Commonspace. She doesn’t like the Bill Boards.

    1. Having been exposed to many news programmes during her youth didn’t stop Angela from becoming a left leaning Independence supporting woman. ……….The levels of propaganda emanating from the BBC years ago were very low compared to what Scotland is being exposed to currently. Left leaning,…… many senior journalists at BBC Scotland have strong links to the Labour Party.

    2. “I was brought up believing it was healthy to consume a wide range of media, to engage with it, and most importantly, to always question it” …… Good for you, some people don’t know the names of the leaders of the political parties, etc.

    3. “It’s deeply insulting to suggest to people that they’ve made a bad decision because they weren’t able to work an answer out for themselves.” …….That’s not what’s being suggested, they are being informed that a supplier of information is not trustworthy. This will help them to make better decisions.

    4. ” they don’t want to be told the BBC made their decisions for them.”…….. Really, in my experience people are grateful when they are informed they have been hoodwinked , and have anger for the source of the lies.

    5. “Consider this: despite the imbalance of the media landscape, the pro-independence vote rose substantially to reach 45 per cent” ……. Without the imbalance of the media landscape there’s a strong chance that Scotland would now be negotiating her independence.

    Tell you what Angela, you get on with your contribution to the campaign and we’ll get on with ours. That’s the Wee Ginger Dog’s response, it’s mine as well.

    Liked by 1 person

      • johnrobertson834 October 31, 2016 / 12:13 pm

        I’ve experienced Angela’s ashen judgement on my writing already. I’m staying well away.


  4. johnrobertson834 October 31, 2016 / 6:55 am

    CDRFUZZ, is this personal? Do you know the author?

    Are you really saying I should have checked that the Linkedin details were accurate before wondering if she should have declared them? Why should anyone have to. If she forgot the password it takes seconds to request an email with a replacement. Are you really saying that she saw no advantage in them being as they are for her career?

    When the BBC reported me to my employer in 2014 with a view to punishment of some sort, some of my colleagues nervously moved away from me and others were told to stay away from me if they wanted to work again with the BBC. Not one senior academic came to my defence in terms of academic freedom. So many of them love to be on the Beeb if they can. True cowards I’d say.

    For two weeks I lived in fear. I think I know what cowardice is. I’m not sure you do.

    Leaving the BBC links up to gather potential employment opportunities then pretending they are defunct when they become an embarrassment strikes me as a bit lazy Maybe not cowardly but a but sneaky? Do you really think that’s reasonable?


    • Kirsty Strickland November 1, 2016 / 5:05 pm

      ”Leaving the BBC links up to gather potential employment opportunities then pretending they are defunct when they become an embarrassment strikes me as a bit lazy Maybe not cowardly but a but sneaky? Do you really think that’s reasonable?”

      John what are you actually talking about? You are making a whole series of deeply unfair and categorically untrue statements about me here. I have not ‘pretended’ anything is defunct. It is defunct. I have never used that page. Do you not think if I was using it to ”gather potential employment opportunities” I’d have A: Updated it with actual experience I’ve had in writing since 2012 and B: Used it for it’s purpose? C: Logged into it at any point over the last 4 years?

      You can argue that the earth is flat, but given that I am the person you are making wild accusations about you might try and listen to what I am actually saying:

      These things are all true. If you continue to argue that they aren’t, then you are calling me a liar. Which is sad given you are somebody who I have listened to and whose view and experience I have respected up until this point.

      1. I have never worked for the BBC
      2. Until that profile page was shared on Twitter; I wasn’t aware it existed. I cannot remember setting it up, but given the only piece of information on there is about that training course – the most likely scenario was that we set them up during the course and I forgot about it.
      3. I have tried all of my old email addresses with it to try and reset the password and take it down – none of them are linked to it.
      4. I have sent numerous emails to LinkedIn – along with a copy of my passport – to try and remove it.
      5. I have written written several DIRECTLY CRITICAL pieces about BBC Scotland.
      6. I am not a professional journalist. I am a unemployed single mother who writes because I enjoy it, and because I have something to say.
      7. I am not ‘sneaky’.

      Just because you say something about my mindset doesn’t mean it is true. I am *telling* you it’s not. If everything I wrote was for the purpose of gaining employment at the BBC where does everything I’ve said up until this point fit in with that? At no point in the billboard piece did I put up a defence of the BBC – I was arguing that I didn’t think the billboards were a good idea.

      You can’t see how baseless and unfair your ascertains are because you don’t know me. Which is fine, I don’t expect you to. But please stop telling me and others, through a blog that you write that you know more about my ‘real’ motivations than I do.

      I would never claim to know more about a person than they do. And if I was going to ignore them and call them a liar I’d have a damn sight more to back me up than an empty linkedin page as my smoking gun.


      • johnrobertson834 November 1, 2016 / 6:44 pm

        I’ve caused upset and clearly I’ve misjudged you. I’m sorry and withdraw all my doubts.


      • johnrobertson834 November 1, 2016 / 8:25 pm

        Bear in mind I don’t know you. Over 40 years in education I’ve been lied to many times by young people. Quite often extreme indignation has accompanied the lies. Remember I don’t know you. However, you have gone to such lengths to defend yourself I feel sure now that I was wrong to doubt you. Sincere apologies.


      • Kirsty Strickland November 10, 2016 / 6:58 pm

        I don’t expect you to know me John, but I do expect you to do a degree of due diligence or at least use your common sense and the information available to you to reach the most probable conclusion. I accept your apology. As an update, LinkedIn still are not allowing me access to that profile page, because I can’t prove to them I set it up – it isn’t linked to any of my information or email addresses.

        I’d ask that since you say you accept that you may have jumped the gun a bit, that you remove this unfair and untrue post about me. Not many people read down to the comments, they will just see the initial (untrue) assertions about my character. I know mistakes can be made, but in the interests of solidarity and good-faith, they should be corrected wherever possible.

        I’d do the same and I trust you will too.


  5. johnrobertson834 October 31, 2016 / 12:11 pm

    Kirsty (and Fuzz), perhaps you will see why my reaction to apparent BBC links is both fast and maybe justified by previous experience:

    In January 2014, the country’s most powerful media institution had just written to the Principal of my university to accuse me of bringing both the BBC and the University into disrepute by publishing ‘research’ findings based on flawed methodology and damaging to both institutions. I can’t imagine what punishment they expected or hoped for me. Within days colleagues and ‘friends’ were distancing themselves from me. Some suggested I back down and apologise to save my skin. Others came back from collaborative project visits to Pacific Quay having been warned to stay well away from me if they valued their future chances. Not one academic went public to stand up for my right to academic freedom, not one. No newspaper editor did that either. Indeed supposed independence supporter, Richard Walker, then editor of the Sunday Herald, refused to publish my findings. It took two weeks for my Principal to tell me that he would respect my academic freedom but that UWS would not be associated with or promote my research. It disappeared. I suffered in those two weeks. I feared it might all be over. If I’d worked at one of the older higher-status universities, I’d have been out of the door pronto.

    I’m genuinely sorry to hear, Kirsty, you say ‘I’ve never felt so unwelcome in Yes as I do at this time’. I regret any personal abuse others have directed at you. I haven’t see any of it though one person did accuse me of being sexist. Sheeesh


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s