It is not about whether I agree or disagree with them. There are countless people with whom I disagree intensely, but I at least respect them for their analytical rigour. Will Patterson and Richard Thomson are nationalists with whom I disagree, but they are not Cybernats. It is no secret that there is a significant element of the online nationalist fraternity that lacks rigour and deals primarily in personal attacks.

Normally when the word Cybernat is used, I think it is generally taken to mean the sorts of people who post inflammatory and aggressive comments anonymously on websites like The Scotsman and on established blogs, but not established bloggers.

You are right that due to the anonymous nature of these people, it cannot be proved that they are all supporters of independence, but I would be amazed if the vast majority are not.

Stephen, as far as I can gather (perhaps naively) a cybernat is anyone who supports Scottish independence, hence my question.

I’m certainly not worried by some name-calling, I was just interested to see if you would be more open.

My blog is certainly not inflammatory imo and I should think many of my readers would agree. If you can’t have an argument/discussion without being personal or insulting, then don’t visit my blog. My success is due to my readers. They develop and maintain high quality debates.

These people who get their kicks from verbally abusing people online are sad souls who operate under complete anonymity. How can it be proved they are true supporters of independence (ie cybernats)? I’ve no idea.

It’s interesting that you might be worried that you might be classed as a Cybernat (just one sentence after proclaiming that you don’t care). Do you think your blog is inflammatory? As I said, I am not naming names. I do not keep a “little booK”, and who is or is not a Cybernat is irrelevant.

I am quite surprised this has got such attention actually. I am hardly the first person to comment on the Cybernat phenomenon, and the reason I mentioned it in this case was because of the experience Scottish Unionist has had from these dregs of the internet.

Yes I had one argument with SU and that was when I considered he had stepped well over the line into the personal, but our private communications were courteous.

It’s most unfortunate a fool adopted his name and spammed any blog which supported independence but I was certain it wasn’t SU.

It would appear you are unaware that some bloggers are trying hard to create debate regarding the constitutional question.

The Scottish blogosphere is small and it really isn’t necessary to insult your fellow bloggers in this way. Personally I don’t care what you think of my blog and its content, I write what interests me and luckily it also interests others.

Would you be courageous enough to inform me if I’m classed in your little book as a Cybernat?

Is he more rounded, then?

BC, It is not about whether I agree or disagree with them. There are countless people with whom I disagree intensely, but I at least respect them for their analytical rigour. Will Patterson and Richard Thomson are nationalists with whom I disagree, but they are not Cybernats. It is no secret that there is a significant element of the online nationalist fraternity that lacks rigour and deals primarily in personal attacks.

Wardog, I won’t name any because — unlike Cybernats — I don’t go personal when debating.

Would you care to name these ‘borderline illiterate Cybernats’, a term I find personally insulting and astonishingly deorgatory.

Who are these ‘Cybernats’ that the wholier than thou amongst cast into the pit?

“did a fine job of exposing the rotten nature of nationalism”

Dear oh dear, getting a bit dramatic aren’t we love.