THE author of a report criticising the Growth Commission has launched a defence of his work – tweeting out the same screenshot an incredible 48 times in two days in a bizarre attempt to dismiss criticisms.
Kevin Hague, chairman of pro-Union think tank These Islands, has been under fire after labelling the Growth Commission's findings misleading and unrealistic.
Now, we don’t have a problem with people genuinely offering considered criticism of the SNP’s independence blueprint. In fact, The National has probably published more articles criticising its recommendations than any other newspaper in Scotland.
But we suspect that Kevin isn’t really interested in anything other than using his These Islands ‘think-tank’ for cynical attempts to undermine the case for independence. His response didn’t even take the impact of the UK’s current Brexit shambles into account!
Don’t believe us? Here’s Chris Deerin director of an actual Scottish think-tank, Reform Scotland, with a subtle dig at Hague’s social media posts.
Subtweet: if you have pretensions to be a think tank and be taken seriously by the rest then there are certain ways to conduct yourself. Otherwise you're just divisive (and unhinged) single-issue hacks.
— Chris Deerin (@chrisdeerin) July 23, 2018
Unfortunately, Kevin doesn’t seem to take criticism very well.
Rather than address concerns over the economic credibility of his ‘think-tank’ directly, he's prepared a screenshot quoting a selection of five reviewers to hand – and he really, really, really wants the world to see it.
Let’s take a look at these economists.
We have:
- Professor Brian Ashcroft – appeared in YouTube videos for Better Together in front of a wall of "No Thanks" signs
- Professor Ronald MacDonald – appeared in YouTube videos for Better Together in front of a wall of "No Thanks" signs
- Sir Andrew Large – said Scotland were "in danger of selling themselves short" with a Yes vote ... "please stay with us"
- Brian Quinn CBE – former executive director of the Bank of England who backed Better Together's position on currency
- Professor Jim Gallagher – director of research for Better Together
Not exactly neutral in the independence debate, are they...
But this is not even the funniest part – what's even better is that he has tweeted out this screenshot FORTY-EIGHT times in the past two days.
Just to give you a sense of scale as to how desperate this is, we've embedded all the replies below. Congratulations to anyone who makes it to the bottom!
if you get these respected economists to endorse your work, I imagine you will pic.twitter.com/NmNoK1usce
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 24, 2018
1. he’s a tax accountant
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 24, 2018
2. these are “real economists” pic.twitter.com/hYjSkxLQxJ
if you read our report you’d know the answer to both of those questions (and you’d see the respected economists who endorse our work) pic.twitter.com/lD47FFKr7J
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 24, 2018
indeed - it’s not as if I’m a lone voice here pic.twitter.com/SAl245JTDx
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 24, 2018
“ones skewed depictions” pic.twitter.com/2ecjHd12RK
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 24, 2018
armchair amateurs pic.twitter.com/85FiaLzsDc
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 24, 2018
there are loads of people there are no quotes from - this is a particularly bizarre line - are you saying you don’t respect these people?
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
When you deign to engage with the content (as I have directly with yours) get back to me, yeah? pic.twitter.com/T8x9bTsRXc
enough to get the paper endorsed by the people through a rigorous peer-review process
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
you’re welcome pic.twitter.com/e57pIKCk1L
don’t forget the idiotic professors of economics and broad array of idiotic respected academics https://t.co/14AsUaa48G pic.twitter.com/6GTEGQ4y0I
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
slightly out of date (i’ve since added a couple of other non-execs) but my qualifications are solid enough - but more to the point: the paper has been peer reviewed by *highly* qualified economists pic.twitter.com/P1HSJmU8iJ
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
look everybody - an SNP MP’s contribution to the constructive and civilised debate they’re so keen to see #FML pic.twitter.com/ULvqVMV6mZ
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
if you catch me making that claim, be sure to let me know
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
in the meantime, maybe try actually reading the paper and ask yourself why these people endorse it? pic.twitter.com/kRHeAj2F6Y
*coughs* pic.twitter.com/iiWmxrt6mU
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
maybe read the report and ask yourself why these eminent economists endorse the analysis?
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
just a thought pic.twitter.com/nwY61RcjXM
weird that these clowns were willing to review and endorse my amateur ramblings then, isn’t it? pic.twitter.com/x5e64I4pE3
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
he maybe was paying attention to what these people had to say and might even have read the report and formed a judgement based on the merits of the analysis?
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
crazy talk I know pic.twitter.com/UgIt5hOXwv
you do realise that an SNP was given immediate right of reply with no chance for me to respond - and she suggested what these people have endorsed was “nonsense”
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
or did you not realise that? pic.twitter.com/8SBMxjBQfr
mate, it’s full of analysis reviewed and endorsed by these people - but you’d know that if you’d bothered to read it pic.twitter.com/VGXMVmlXsC
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
what, by allowing an SNP MO to respond to me unchallenged, to not give me a chance to refute her assertion that these people were endorsing analysis that she calls “nonsense”?
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
No, that’s just all part of the rough and tumble of media interaction pic.twitter.com/Fz59aKn1Zg
seriously?
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
I assume you read the non-objective Growth Commission report?
I thought you were more intellectually robust than to choose to ignore analysis that these people explicitly endorse tbh pic.twitter.com/W9iDHqZrNb
how (some) Scottish nationalists approach political debate - ignore the bad people trying to explain simple economic facts pic.twitter.com/5DWoj7TONy
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
doh! pic.twitter.com/QIE6OfYQPk
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
what - by giving me (as author of this report, with these endorsements) a few minutes and then allowing an SNP MP to respond without any comeback from me? pic.twitter.com/J5JSVhlKPs
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
there is no view that can be offered that doesn’t require the observer to be standing somewhere
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
these experts can’t be dismissed, there are absolute rights and wrongs when it comes to objective analysis pic.twitter.com/RG4Pei5LMF
it’s because of nonsense like this that we sought external expert review of the paper pic.twitter.com/GanHBcz9IH
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
and it’s worth noting the claim now being made about the last ten years does *not* appear in the Growth Commission report - and our analysis is endorsed by “proper economists” pic.twitter.com/QeWtuTxvbt
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
so these guys are dog food sellers too? pic.twitter.com/14oporwZtV
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
*sighs* pic.twitter.com/O1LPRuUdCp
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
whereas ... pic.twitter.com/SAOKDe4nly
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
*coughs* pic.twitter.com/0dOzMb5NmN
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
yeah, bunch of jokershttps://t.co/14AsUaa48G pic.twitter.com/p3ws75Q4oo
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
yes - every view is affected by where you stand [the GC stand committed to independence]https://t.co/uFrVrO3e21
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
Objective analysis can be independently verified by experts though pic.twitter.com/jJ9POQ5jhC
this must blow your mind pic.twitter.com/776ikcCk7J
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
you wouldn’t by any chance be reading a speculative article written before we were formed?
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
Here’s the advisory councilhttps://t.co/14AsUaa48G
Here’s who endorse this report pic.twitter.com/TyOSABRXnC
oh - and this think tankhttps://t.co/14AsUaa48G
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
with a report endorsed by these people pic.twitter.com/Dy3bYs6d0M
and these guys who explicitly endorse the analysis in the report - balloons too? pic.twitter.com/vx2uO0l1gO
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
yeah, bunch of jokers they have agreeing with the report as well pic.twitter.com/O01heSaYzG
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
pro-independence Growth Commission shown to have fudged the numbers to try make their case more palatable shocker
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
Our report is externally reviewed and the analysis explicitly endorsed pic.twitter.com/UWki4cX8IY
of course they are - but they’ll be on thin ice if they try to discredit these guys pic.twitter.com/DKPqXVmbMu
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
Tory?https://t.co/14AsUaa48G
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
Biased? pic.twitter.com/CkuoWfWO3B
for the record @KirstySNP: if you choose to assert that what these people endorse as sound analysis is “nonsense”, you really need to be able to back that up (and you didn’t) pic.twitter.com/aV34xWJpv1
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 23, 2018
and they ignore this pic.twitter.com/Ljv1KtdaVd
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 24, 2018
@NicolaSturgeon
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 24, 2018
you wanted Growth Commission to stimulate a serious debate - we’ve published a thorough, nuanced, and peer-reviewed response
1. will you encourage people to read it & engage?
2. What’s your view of Peter Grant’s “contribution”?https://t.co/gml3oQpwX6 pic.twitter.com/QHHyDq278z
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 24, 2018
read the full paper for heaven’s sake - I address that quote directly (it is inconsistent with the rest of the Growth Commission’s report)
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 24, 2018
These people are among those who agree with me pic.twitter.com/kPz3b8jEAk
what’s an “arch-unionist”?
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 24, 2018
it’s not just me who says it by the way, here are comments from some of the respected economists who reviewed the paper pic.twitter.com/WLTsQZvyz3
*coughs* pic.twitter.com/Zluhnquyln
— Kevin Hague (@kevverage) July 24, 2018
Oh dear ... someone needs to take a step back from the computer.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel