Advice for David Torrance
There’s a curious piece in today’s Herald, which we can’t be bothered linking to, in which ubiquitous pundit David Torrance makes a whole series of almost entirely inaccurate speculations about the motivations behind our Panelbase poll from last week. (Torrance, of course, is the commentator about whom Alex Salmond wrote an amusingly sarcastic letter to the same paper pointing out that despite appointing himself the former FM’s “biographer”, he didn’t know him at all.)
We didn’t announce beforehand that we were conducting the poll. Had we been greatly surprised or disappointed by its findings, we were under no obligation whatsoever to make all or any of them public. We could have cherry-picked only the ones we found most favourable to our cause – like the fact that Scots want to stay in Europe while the rest of the UK wants out – or simply pretended the whole thing never happened.
(The money was already spent. We don’t get a refund if we keep the results secret.)
David Torrance didn’t bother asking us why we’d commissioned the poll, but instead wrote a column based solely on his incorrect assumptions. Which is odd, as in so far as the very little we’ve conversed with him, we’ve done so cordially, and were happy to post him his own print edition of the Wee Blue Book when he asked last year, even despite past incidents like this.
We’ve always been happy to provide mainstream-media journalists with quotes when asked. So we’d just like to remind Mr Torrance that our Twitter account is here, our Facebook page is here, and our contact form is here. We’re not hard to reach. If he wants to know why we did something or what we think about anything, all he needs to do is drop us a line, rather than make stuff up and get it wrong.
He has always looked like a refugee from “Thunderbirds” to me and I no longer read anything he has written as it lacks completely any of the real insight you can sometimes get from out big boy correspondents.
What? A journalist make stuff up – that’ll never happen!
I believe that this is indeed the conclusive photographic evidence that Torrance is may be the bastard love child of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Fact. Probably.
link to davidtorrance.blogspot.co.uk
Dave McEwan Hill says:
19 January, 2015 at 9:27 am
“He has always looked like a refugee from “Thunderbirds” to me….”
Brains’ retarded cousin?
Ooft. 🙂
I’m seeing a pattern forming with Mr Torrance and work based on assumption. 😉
Hey Stu, can you delete that comment I made in the article you link to, saying that we were going to win the referendum? Looks a bit silly now…
Good old David Torrance. The same unbiased, non-partisan journalist who gleefully wore a Tunnock’s Teacake t-shirt on TV the day after the referendum result.
Oh, how subversive of you Davey.
I sat next to him a few times at the book festival last year and I swear I thought he was Will Young
I wrote him off as a serious commentator when I met him on Calton Hill, at the rally. 😉
In addition to not being able to indicate which side he favoured, DT then tried to convince me that Yes were as guilty as Better Together, in relaying on propaganda and misinformation. The role played by the BBC didn’t seem to figure in DT’s observations.
“Hey Stu, can you delete that comment I made in the article you link to, saying that we were going to win the referendum? Looks a bit silly now…”
I’ll get right on it.
@MajorBloodnok
Well Major that photo is grim indeed but your comment has me chortling so thanks for that.
Interesting find Major.
If he doesn’t want to be thought of as a Tory bloke, maybe he needs to stop being a Tory bloke… ;D
Mr. Torrance is sadly one of a dwindling number of so called Scottish “journalists” who are obviously struggling with the concept of journalistic integrity which is founded on a number of tenants such as reliable sources, evidence trails, facts, corroboration etc.
If he is need of advice he can also find me just as easily as Rev S. Campbell. But I suspect, with regards to the relationship with Mr. Torrance & FM Alex Salmond, if indeed it ever existed, rather than actually pick up the phone & speak to someone, he would rather pen some distant & fictitious copy to serve the bigoted culture demanded of his snivelling, editorial overlord, Mr. Gardham.
You do have to question the wisdom of these people as they continue to suffer steeply falling sales that will surely lead their title to a Victorian filing cabinet in the Mitchell Library.
I think he looks like the Milky Bar Kid.
The word set is
pointless peerie nyaff
although Tory Boy does as well
Torrance is your stereotypical msm hack.Very limited journalistic powers and has to write about those who he is jealous of to keep himself relevant.
View it as a form of flattery Stuart.
Well, my dart-board has at least got a new target.
Too late now. Journalists without integrity are dime a dozen… worse than worthless.
How many David Torrances does it take to change a light bulb?
David doesn’t know how to change a light bulb, but he’ll wrote an authoritative biography about whoever you get to change it, because he’ll know them really, really well.
I wonder when his next book is coming out … you know the one … it’s the sequel to his ever so accurate and in depth analysis of Alex Salmond! I believe it is to be called “Nicola Sturgeon my part in her supersonic rise through the ranks of the S.N.P.!” 😀
MaThatcher didn’t look too pleased about being photo-bombed by him.
Caption competition?
I think what we have in David’s Article is the cutting edge of Investigative Journalism in the contemporary age.
Direct no questions to the relevant bodies/people then berate them in the press with no right of reply, passing them off as your best buddies.
Or Print what the Numbskulls operating your brain tell you to write. It’s the future for the informed reader, and that must be true.. I read it in the Paper..
‘Pinch my bum again and you’ll feel my handbag, y’wee nyaff.’
@Cearc
Thatcher thought balloon: “What have I done. Forgive me Lord.”
BTW Noticed Mr Torrance’s face was absolutely tripping him at Nicola’s Hydro gig.
Stu, perhaps you should send a letter to the Herald as well.
I saw David Torrance on the eve of the referendum, and he was looking happy, and pleased about something. Just saying.
Fuck the Herald. Who cares?
I notice that you don’t take issue with his main points about what your poll shows about attitudes in Scotland compared to rUK, and how the extent of differences was exaggerated during the indyref campaign – only the motivations he attributes to Wings.
To CameronB Brodie – I think he’s right that Yes were just as guilty of relaying propaganda and misinformation, there was a lot of dubious guff, selective accounts and dodgy projections from both sides (isn’t there always in politics?). The difference was in the power of either side to disseminate their dubious guff, and No had a distinct advantage there. But it’s worth remembering that Yes had the entire machinery of the Scottish Government behind it, so the David (not Torrance) vs Goliath argument is not as straightforward as often described.
“I notice that you don’t take issue with his main points about what your poll shows about attitudes in Scotland compared to rUK, and how the extent of differences was exaggerated during the indyref campaign”
Not by me it wasn’t.
I hadn’t realised how old the “cybernats” meme is. Here’s Torrance in October 2010!
link to davidtorrance.com
These pointy-heads really do have a problem with your success and reach, Rev. The moronically snide “clearly he can’t buy the Herald in Bath” betrays his agenda.
If truth were a person Mr.Torrance could/would write his autobiography, he may know him on sight but not necessarily be a close acquaintance. Truth would be similar to that troublesome relative that can be avoided when not convenient but claim to be a very close to when it is to advantage.
@GH Graham
Well said except you do not base anything on tenants, they tend to report you to the ombudsman or the council. You might base things on tenets though in DT’s case they will obviously be the wrong ones. He simply seems to see a different world from the one that actually exists. Which is curious in a supposed journalist.
He’s made an entire career on being ‘unofficial’, in other words, give me some money and I’ll do some guess work.
All this stuff lately has really started to get me depressed. Am totally sick of this mess we are forced to be part of called the union. Am now at the stage where I just want out. It’s went beyond a joke now.
The UK at one point did have certain points where you could stand up and be proud of. But in saying that am talking about a very few moments over 70 years ago.
Am scunnered
Sorry for going O/T so early chasps and chaspesses but I came across this on Facebook and was wondering what our legal eagles on here thought about it. 😉
link to facebook.com
Yes folks I have *ahem* reverted back … well at least for this post! 😀
O/T
Article on how Scotland politics have changed & political commentators failure to understand that shift.
Good read 🙂
link to peterabell.blogspot.co.uk
[…] Advice for David Torrance […]
With this lot taking every opportunity to blacken Wings & Stu’s name it’s a sure sign that they are reacting to all the reports about WoS being the trusted source for news during Indyref.
Doesn’t matter if their accusations are true or not. They’ve sown the seeds of doubt.
This Twitter spat is a prime example-it happens in real time & ends. Torrance then goes away & deletes everything-hey presto- nothing to see here. Didn’t happen!
Showing the tweets here as a permanent record just confirms that Torrance is an eejit if he thinks he can deny it happened. Well played Stu 🙂
@RMAC 10:22am
He’d have to look in a mirror to be absolutely sure he was writing his “auto”-biography in the third person.
PS – Stu, thanks for turning on the spell checker [thumbs-up thingy]
I meant to say earlier..
Is that a Wax Work, or did Thatcher actually meet him in the flesh..
I couldn’t help it.. Sorry..
It’s sad to think that if David Torrance doesn’t get out of journalism he’s going to wind up like Alan Cochrane who I keep mistaking for his dad.
O/T Richest 1% to own half the world’s wealth by 2016 (while the 99% share the rest). They’re off to Davos to plan their next robbery.
link to rt.com
Thought for the day:-
Would Scotland have voted for Independence if Tommy Sheridan had ran the YES Campaign instead of Blair Jenkins?
BrianW
I wasn’t aware that Mr Torrace has had his face Tussaud.
Typical, of the lazy journalism we, sadly, have come to expect; from our media.
If Torrance were chocolate he’d eat himself.
David who?
O/T but there is an excellent piece on how Scotland’s oil bankrolled britain, and an interesting perspective on the way forward in ‘The National’ today.
link to thenational.scot
Torrance was only one the reasons I sopped being a Herald fan and stopped buying it.
He’s just performing the preliminaries prior to your biography, Stu.
Liked the earlier article linked to, Rev. The ‘Not-so-straight’ headline was a bit naughty.
Still, I did laugh.
@cearc
“” I am sure I’d flushed “
@ Swami Backverandah
Unauthorised of course. 🙂
“Liked the earlier article linked to, Rev. The ‘Not-so-straight’ headline was a bit naughty.”
I haven’t a clue what David Torrance’s sexual proclivities are, nor was I attempting to suggest that I did. It was purely a pun on our own ill-starred “Straight Debates” series.
Maybe we should do the first crowdbio on him?
I’ll start it off shall I?
Chapter 1
David’s Constructive Contributions To The Independence Debate.
Erm.
Right, next.
Why small differences are crucial when politicians are fighting for supremacy
David Torrance
It was the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud who first coined the phrase “narcissism of small differences”.
He described a phenomenon in which “adjoining territories” are “engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other” on the basis of “details of differentiation”.
To Freud it was represented a “relatively harmless satisfaction of the inclination to aggression”, and indeed this need to exaggerate often small differences still dominates politics in general and Nationalism in particular.
Take a recent survey commissioned by the prolific blogger Wings Over Scotland, which deliberately contrasted public attitudes in Scotland and the rest of the UK, one assumes in the hope of justifying a key narrative of the referendum (i.e. that Scots think differently from those in other parts of the country).
Instead he (the Rev Stuart Campbell) found that, overall, Scots agreed with their counterparts in the rest of the UK on most major policy issues, “varying only in degree”, a conclusion backed up by several other social attitudes surveys over the past couple of decades.
Even in areas where Campbell reckoned Scots differed “quite a lot” – on nuclear weapons, the monarchy and workfare – the gap wasn’t that large. On the monarchy, for example, two thirds of Scots agreed “Britain should keep the monarchy” while in rUK the proportion was three quarters – both sizeable majorities.
On immigration, meanwhile, 69 per cent of Scots agreed there was “a problem with too much immigration”, compared with 71 per cent in rUK. Bizarrely, Wings concluded this near identical finding was driven “by Scotland’s lack of a true native media” (clearly he can’t buy the Herald in Bath), even though most Scottish newspapers have long pursued a more liberal editorial line on immigration.
Most striking were the poll’s findings on Trident. When asked if the UK “should continue to have nuclear weapons” 44 per cent of Scots agreed compared with 51 per cent in rUK, leading Wings to conclude that Scots “don’t like having Trident in their own backyard”, even though more do than don’t.
This last finding illustrates well the often-significant gap that exists beyond political discourse and public opinion. Throughout the referendum the SNP gave the impression that Scotland was one giant branch of the CND, whereas in fact the biggest chunk of Scots agrees more with the new Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy on the nuclear deterrent than they do with Nicola Sturgeon.
I’ve described this many times as the great referendum paradox, that as attitudes in Scotland have come to resemble those in the rest of the UK more closely the demand for independence (premised on irreconcilable differences) reaches historic highs. On-going polling for this May’s general election, meanwhile, shows no let up when it comes to electoral behaviour, where the differences are neither small nor narcissistic.
Yesterday a Panelbase poll showed that on current voting intentions Scottish Labour would lose half its seats with the SNP adding an impressive 29 seats to the half dozen they currently hold. The Scottish Tories would gain just one extra MP while the Liberal Democrats would lose all but two of the 11 constituencies secured at the last general election in 2010.
Later this month will mark the 50th anniversary of the death of Winston Churchill, and with him a very different political era when the two major parties (Labour and the Conservatives) could hoover up more than 90 per cent of the popular vote and smaller parties like the SNP and Liberals were fringe political forces. Those days are long gone.
Indeed, the remarkable rise of the recently departed Jeremy Thorpe and his small band of Liberals in the general election of February 1974 represented a decisive shift to a new electoral age in which the two historically dominant parties couldn’t count on majorities and smaller parties became increasingly mainstream.
Thus the forthcoming election continues that trend, with Labour and the Tories each fighting over little more than a third of the popular vote, the Lib Dems likely to decline sharply (though still well above historic vote shares) and the SNP on the cusp of surpassing its October 1974 tally of 11 MPs and 30 per cent of the vote.
In that context no party can afford to fight a conventional campaign, not least in Scotland. The Conservatives have already reheated a message dating back to the Churchill era (“Life’s better with the Conservatives, don’t let Labour ruin it”) while north of the border the SNP has fallen back on its tried-and-tested line about a strong band of Nationalists holding the balance of power at Westminster.
Only this time that SNP cry seems a lot more credible. What the polls cannot really detect, however, is the prospect of tactical voting. Back in the 1980s Labour, the Liberals and SNP actively encouraged this in order to oust incumbent Tory MPs, and although there is actually limited evidence that occurred on a large scale, this time round I wouldn’t underestimate it.
Anecdotally, I’ve spoken to several Unionists of different political hues who plan to vote for whomever they judge capable of preventing an SNP win. Polls showing the Nationalists storming ahead can only fuel this phenomenon, for just as it’s likely that now famous YouGov referendum poll giving Yes its first lead scared and motivated Unionist-minded folk into voting No, the prospect of 40 or 50 SNP MPs could have a similar effect.
The SNP is also more vulnerable than might at first appear on the policy front. Last Thursday’s First Minister’s Questions gave an intriguing glimpse of Scottish Labour’s election attack lines, chiefly the oil crisis and the prospect of the Barnett Formula being abolished should the SNP make “Home Rule” or fiscal autonomy a condition of supporting a minority Labour Party at Westminster.
In response the First Minister looked uncharacteristically rattled, failing to address either Kezia Dugdale’s “bin Barnett” charge or indeed an ongoing barrage about the falling oil price. Given that the economics of independence played a major role in last September’s majority No vote, it makes sense for Scottish Labour to carry on, as Peter Mandelson once put it, “punching the bruise”.
Where Alex Salmond might have been able to glide over uncomfortable details while dazzling his opponents with a lifetime’s accumulated oil jargon, Nicola Sturgeon is markedly less willing to do so. To argue that Scotland wouldn’t have been independent until 2016 so the oil price somehow doesn’t matter is scarcely adequate, much like the First Minister’s belated call for a tax cut in order to stimulate activity.
Even so, the SNP is in a remarkably strong position less than four months from polling day. Jim Murphy, meanwhile, seems intent on reviving a long tradition of “Unionist Nationalism” by picking fights with what he calls “London Nationalists”, and even his own leader to highlight the point that Scotland, as he claimed at a recent lunch with journalists, “is different”.
Or, as Wings Over Scotland put it, “the same but different”; even small differences can become important when politicians are fighting for supremacy in an increasingly complex political context.
Perfect journalistic companion for Murphy though.They both make things up
Well done Rev Stu, it takes a true gentleman to reach out to journalists like Mr Torrance in order to try and help everyone get to the truth.
I hope David takes this professional guidance onboard. He’s a young, inexperienced lad so there is time.
But why on earth would anyone like Torrance ever want to take the risk of ruining a controversial or inaccurate writing or article of dubious credibility, by contacting any reliable source who, by offering truthful information, would compromise and spoil his art at obfuscation.
He’s like a ‘tic’ feeding off the greatness of others he could never aspire to match.
TBF The article, apart from the presumed motivation for the polls on his part, doesn’t seem all that bad.
Is that photo Tory Boy World at Madam Tussauds? Pity he’s such a light weight as he does have great hair, inteligent hair, and his poll critique thing in the ever ghastly Herald is the usual “look at how similar we all are in teamGB, except for the fact that there is one Tory MP in Scotland and like a gazillion in England and no matter how hard they push that strange lad Murphy, Scotland is SNP and Slab are on the down escalator and have been since SNP took over.” Funny that.
Maybe if nice but dim David applied his brilliance to the above, we might have political analyses that even begin to approach WoS:D
O/T
From 2009
Murphy wants to build new nuclear power stations in Scotland.
link to news.bbc.co.uk
Rev,
You’re not a real journalist, so Torrance can say anything he likes about you.
Get over it or join the Lab/Lib/Tory alliance and be taken seriously. See?!
🙂 This post is an attempt at humour.
Is it possible to be a political journalist and not be partisan?
I take it DT (North American native moniker: Confused With Abacus) must surely lean towards some political doctrine? They do vote don’t they, these well-informed journos? I get the impression that DT desperately wants to be ‘perceived’ (London’s Calling) as some kind of extreme, non-partisan, coldly-objective journalist. But then you hear him talk: those impressively rounded vowels, that air of uber-confidence; you blink at his wardrobe, those dazzling tank-tops, those well-cut tweed suits. The Hair. Those IQ-promoting specs.
Then a wee voice in your heid says, ‘he’s a Tory, in’t he?’.
Why is David Torrance standing next to Jim Murphy in this photo?
If I were DT, I’d keep my distance.
Bookie from Hell – thanks for that C&P of Torrance, but I can see why Stu didn’t bother to link to it. Torrance’s convenient no-mention of Stu’s over-arching point that no UK parties were offering what the UK electorate wanted to see was almost as good as Wallace forgetting about the deficit in his conference speech.
His use of Freud might be better amended to “the narcissim of hopeful self-publicists” – in reference to himself of course.
However he raises a general point somewhere in the morass of wasted ink/e-ink that we do want to take heed of.
My impression is that we’re of a mind that the unionists are heading into May in their usual divided frame of mind, intent on squabbling with each other endlessly and seeing their vote divided amongst themselves – thus setting us up for a landslide. However we’re well aware of the ability of the Scots’ electorate to undertake smart tactical voting and we must remember that the Unionists are as good at that as we are.
It’s a fair bet that a good number of traditional Tories have been voting SNP for a long time in seats where they couldn’t win just to make sure they kept Labour down. This is the only reasonable explanation for Ref losses in the likes of Angus and other places we’d consider to be SNP/Indy heartland – many of those areas do have a relatively high traditional Tory vote. Their Unionist interest will see them vote Lab or Libdem this time if either have a hope in hell. LDs liable to do the same.
In May I can see tactical Unionist voters abandonning their traditional parties to vote for anyone with a chance of taking out an Indy candidate.
May 2015 isn’t going to be a re-run of the Indy Ref on the face of it, but the Unionists know what will happen if the SNP do end up holding the UK balance of power – and underneath a media/public surface of their seeming division many will vote as if this is an Indy Ref #2 proxy. Those of sufficient wit to vote tactically will do so and I don’t think we can afford one iota of complacency here. We need to bring in every single vote we can.
Even if we could bring in a spectacular vote (in our terms) in complacent mode, and I doubt it, it’s far better to go for it in every way we can to leave them in no doubt that they’re on the wrong side of history. An emphatic trouncing across the country could well break the spirit of some of their weaker elements, and with only a 5% swing required relative to Sept 18th – that leaves us a lot closer indeed.
Sorry to go off-topic, but has anyone received their copy of the print edition of the Scottish Statesman yet? Total lack of communication from them.
THis guy seeks to rise in the world by running after the arses of the prominenti.
It is said that “All the life’s wisdom can be found in anagrams. Anagrams never lie.”
Nicola Sturgeon – ‘sauntering cool’
Jim Murphy – ‘hi jumpy mr’
David Torrance – ‘I crave odd rant’ or ‘add a contriver’
Maggie Thatcher – ‘tragic hag met he’ …
I gave up reading anything Torrance has written long ago. I found his work to resemble a cross between that of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson and the many offerings of Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm.
Except, perhaps that Dodgeson and the Grimms works were readable, entertaining and amusing, while that of Torrance was much more obviously fictitious than either those of Dodgson’s or the brothers Grimm. They also have none of the readability, entertainment or amusement of Dodgeson or the Grimms.
There is indeed a place in the library for such works of fiction as offered by Torrance – in that big hopper for recycled waste paper standing just outside the library rear door.
I have a great deal of difficulty in distinguishing Duncan Hothersall and David Torrance, could it be they are twins who were split up as babies?
I was sent to the naughty stool on Newsnet due to my response when they announced that Torrance would contribute articles.
Torrance, the unauthorised self-appointed biographer of Alex Salmond, is from the same school of tripe journalism as the SNP-hating, union-propagandist Alan Cochrane. They should both be writing for the comic which masquerades as a newspaper, The Sunday Post.
Carry on as you are doing, Rev Stu. You can be confident you’re doing something right when you are criticised by such numpties as Torrance, the Jackie Baillie of journalistic integrity!
@Lollysmum
Re Peter Bell
What a huge difference between the output of Peter Bell and David Torrance!
It’s not about whether you are pro Indy versus pro Union …. It’s about understanding what is actually going on in Scotland. It’s about writing based on facts and observations versus made up ill informed nonsense.
Torrance allows agenda to displace reality.
caz-m 19 January, 2015 at 11:01 am
“Thought for the day:-Would Scotland have voted for Independence if Tommy Sheridan had ran the YES Campaign instead of Blair Jenkins?”
More than likely for the reason of Presence alone
Does his mother know he’s out?
Stu can’t buy the Herald in Bath?
Has David Torrance heard of this new fangled thing called the interwebs?
Actually I lived in Bath in the 80s and my local newsagent used to get the Scotsman for me (sometimes a day late 🙂 ) He used to get the Orcadian for another chap.
I’m thinking David has limited life experience. Simply writing stuff without research seems to be norm for journalism these days. When I was a lad this was called fiction.
The first time I became aware of David Torrance was when I saw him on a political TV programme some years ago. It became clear very quickly that his opinions and views were what he would like to be the case rather than actual reality.
It looks like not much has changed since then. I’m sure there is saying along the lines ‘once a knob, always a knob’, and even if there’s not, there probably should be.
It’s a tricky time for British nationalist drivelbots such as David Torrance. Their natural inclination to deride and derogate the largest and most popular political party in Scotland has to be curbed in favour of the hysterical propaganda line that the SNP are a huge threat to democracy owing to fact that lots of people are inclined to vote for them.
More at link to peterabell.blogspot.co.uk
[…] There's a curious piece in today's Herald, which we can't be bothered linking to, in which ubiquitous pundit David Torrance makes a whole series of almost entirely inaccurate speculations about the… […]
Scotland has to be curbed in favour of the hysterical propaganda line that the SNP are a huge threat to democracy owing to fact that lots of people are inclined to vote for them.
Peter
Nothing scarier than a party people want to vote for, apparently. 🙂 The whole system seems to operate on the basis of people reluctantly voting for parties simply to keep other parties out.
Why have you blocked me and many others on twitter if you like robust argument ??????
“Why have you blocked me and many others on twitter if you like robust argument ??????”
Because “robust argument” and “tedious cunts” are not synonyms.
haaaa the wee nyaff would be cummin in his pants if he had half your readership numbers
d Torrance please disappear up the in ozone layer you and your friends have made with the rhetorical effluent. if you wish to sell your soul and country to another then move. good bye.
Helena Brown 12:17 pm
“I have a great deal of difficulty in distinguishing Duncan Hothersall and David Torrance, could it be they are twins who were split up as babies?”
I think David Torrance is Duncan’s intellectual superior by some distance. On the Rev’s polling he seems to have spectacularly missed the point.
I was struck by how honest Stu was in putting out polling results that, in part undermined the idea that Scotland and England are very different. It was almost like he reached his conclusions AFTER his research rather than massage the research to suit his agenda.
I thought the series of articles was great – at times depressing, at times heartening, inspiring – a reminder to indy supporters that we have some way to go and how unrepresented the people of the UK are by their politicians. It was a fine piece of work.
If only more journalists took that evidence based approach. David Torrance could try looking at current affairs and analysing them rather than just vying with Cochrane to see who can write 100 consecutive anti-SNP articles first.
All these unionists getting excited about Scotland and rUK’s similar social and political attitudes revealed by the Wings survey need to ask themselves how different the answers would be if similar questions were asked in the Republic of Ireland, France, Germany, Belgium etc. I suspect that social attitudes are broadly similar across most European countries. It doesn’t mean they should all be centrally governed.
Wow, he’s ugly.
“ “I notice that you don’t take issue with his main points about what your poll shows about attitudes in Scotland compared to rUK, and how the extent of differences was exaggerated during the indyref campaign”
Not by me it wasn’t.”
Fair enough, I’m not sure if I could attribute such comments to anyone, but it was definitely a meme during the campaign, on social media and so on. Fair play to Wings for commissioning and publishing the survey in the first place, too. Interesting stuff.
There was what the Yes campaign said. And there was what the British parties and their friends in the media claimed the Yes campaign said. The two were seldom similar.