David Torrance

David Torrance

@davidtorrance

Recently described as a 'Scottish urban hipster in London' - political journalist, broadcaster and contemporary historian (& biographer of Alex Salmond)

London · http://www.davidtorrance.com

Tweets

    1. My interpretation of what you said respectfully differs. But then, I'm a paranoid deranged maniac.

    2. not embarrassed to have written blog based on a misrep'ion of my argument & undermined it with puerile language & use of pix?

    3. But, y'know, shall I start scouring your work for things I consider inaccurate or misrepresentation?

    4. yes, and I'll fess up when they (genuinely) are inaccurate or misleading, something you seem incapable of doing.

    5. What Salmond actually said in that interview was "Yes, [+qualifier]". You've ignored the qualifier and called him a liar.

    pretty feeble. And I called no one a 'liar' - that's the sort of word people like you use.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. In the same piece, you talked of "the political pooper-scooper" and "cleaning up First Ministerial mess". Not puerile?

    2. "Desperate not to be labelled a “cutter” Salmond presented a reduction in further education college funding as a modest rise"

    3. A clear implication that he did it deliberately, rather than reading figures provided in error in good faith.

  1. Image will appear as a link
    1. I never disputed that more yes than no votes in the wouldn't constitute a majority.I was talking about opinion polls

    2. My interpretation of what you said respectfully differs. But then, I'm a paranoid deranged maniac.

    3. not embarrassed to have written blog based on a misrep'ion of my argument & undermined it with puerile language & use of pix?

    4. But, y'know, shall I start scouring your work for things I consider inaccurate or misrepresentation?

    yes, and I'll fess up when they (genuinely) are inaccurate or misleading, something you seem incapable of doing.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. And just by the by, I've added a footnote to the article noting that you object to the description "Tory". Fair-minded, me.

    2. you could also correct the part of the blog which claims I said something I didn't. And remove the irrelevant picture.

    3. I never disputed that more yes than no votes in the wouldn't constitute a majority.I was talking about opinion polls

    4. My interpretation of what you said respectfully differs. But then, I'm a paranoid deranged maniac.

    not embarrassed to have written blog based on a misrep'ion of my argument & undermined it with puerile language & use of pix?

    Image will appear as a link
    1. And just by the by, I've added a footnote to the article noting that you object to the description "Tory". Fair-minded, me.

    2. you could also correct the part of the blog which claims I said something I didn't. And remove the irrelevant picture.

    3. I never disputed that more yes than no votes in the wouldn't constitute a majority.I was talking about opinion polls

    4. My interpretation of what you said respectfully differs. But then, I'm a paranoid deranged maniac.

    it's not a matter of interpretation, it's about what I did & did not say. And you consider your blog responsible & accurate?

    Image will appear as a link
    1. But mostly disappointed that you're sticking to your absurd line that most votes in a 2-choice referendum isn't a majority.

    2. when did I say that? I was only ever talking about polling - you've erroneously conflated the two.

    3. And just by the by, I've added a footnote to the article noting that you object to the description "Tory". Fair-minded, me.

    4. you could also correct the part of the blog which claims I said something I didn't. And remove the irrelevant picture.

    I never disputed that more yes than no votes in the wouldn't constitute a majority.I was talking about opinion polls

    Image will appear as a link
    1. My interpretation of what you said respectfully differs. But then, I'm a paranoid deranged maniac.

    2. it's not a matter of interpretation, it's about what I did & did not say. And you consider your blog responsible & accurate?

    3. That assertion rests on a non-definitive interpretation of the word "majority". As far as I'm concerned, a poll showing...

    4. not embarrassed to have written blog based on a misrep'ion of my argument & undermined it with puerile language & use of pix?

    1. The blog was about you and it's a picture of you. That's a connection. I like having a picture in a post.

    2. that's an incredibly feeble argument but then, as I said, you're a little bit nuts. I've tried to reblock u but can't. G'nite

    3. But mostly disappointed that you're sticking to your absurd line that most votes in a 2-choice referendum isn't a majority.

    4. when did I say that? I was only ever talking about polling - you've erroneously conflated the two.

    5. And just by the by, I've added a footnote to the article noting that you object to the description "Tory". Fair-minded, me.

    you could also correct the part of the blog which claims I said something I didn't. And remove the irrelevant picture.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. I never disputed that more yes than no votes in the wouldn't constitute a majority.I was talking about opinion polls

    2. My interpretation of what you said respectfully differs. But then, I'm a paranoid deranged maniac.

    3. it's not a matter of interpretation, it's about what I did & did not say. And you consider your blog responsible & accurate?

    4. That assertion rests on a non-definitive interpretation of the word "majority". As far as I'm concerned, a poll showing...

    1. The blog was about you and it's a picture of you. That's a connection. I like having a picture in a post.

    2. that's an incredibly feeble argument but then, as I said, you're a little bit nuts. I've tried to reblock u but can't. G'nite

    3. But mostly disappointed that you're sticking to your absurd line that most votes in a 2-choice referendum isn't a majority.

    4. when did I say that? I was only ever talking about polling - you've erroneously conflated the two.

    5. Define "erroneously". As there will be no Don't Knows, the polls show which side will win, and therefore have the majority.

    I didn't assert what you just claimed I did; I was only ever talking about Indy polling, not the itself. Sigh.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. The blog was about you and it's a picture of you. That's a connection. I like having a picture in a post.

    2. that's an incredibly feeble argument but then, as I said, you're a little bit nuts. I've tried to reblock u but can't. G'nite

    3. But mostly disappointed that you're sticking to your absurd line that most votes in a 2-choice referendum isn't a majority.

    when did I say that? I was only ever talking about polling - you've erroneously conflated the two.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. Define "erroneously". As there will be no Don't Knows, the polls show which side will win, and therefore have the majority.

    2. And just by the by, I've added a footnote to the article noting that you object to the description "Tory". Fair-minded, me.

    3. I didn't assert what you just claimed I did; I was only ever talking about Indy polling, not the itself. Sigh.

    4. you could also correct the part of the blog which claims I said something I didn't. And remove the irrelevant picture.

    1. The blog was about you and it's a picture of you. That's a connection. I like having a picture in a post.

    that's an incredibly feeble argument but then, as I said, you're a little bit nuts. I've tried to reblock u but can't. G'nite

    Image will appear as a link
    1. Then feel free to just ignore me. I shan't bother you again. I'm genuinely disappointed and baffled that you're so angry.

    2. But mostly disappointed that you're sticking to your absurd line that most votes in a 2-choice referendum isn't a majority.

    3. when did I say that? I was only ever talking about polling - you've erroneously conflated the two.

    4. Define "erroneously". As there will be no Don't Knows, the polls show which side will win, and therefore have the majority.

  2. I've written several articles for newsnetscotland too, so not sure what your point is.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. My point, simply enough, is that the impression I've personally formed is that you lean towards the Conservatives.

  3. Image will appear as a link
  4. Image will appear as a link
    1. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    2. and don't you think labelling me a 'Tory' & using a (rather good) old pic to illustrate your blog is a bit puerile?

    3. You are, aren't you? I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, even though I'm at the opposite end.

    4. and if it's nothing to be ashamed of, why did your pejorative use of the term & picture feature so prominently in your blog?

    5. "Pejorative"? In what sense? Mentioned it once, in the phrase "Tory commentator David Torrance", which doesn't seem to fit.

    to imply political bias/allegiance in a commentator is generally pejorative. Your use of that pic underlined that general aim

    Image will appear as a link
    1. I've repeatedly said on the site that there's nothing wrong with commentators having allegiances. They're people too.

    1. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    2. and don't you think labelling me a 'Tory' & using a (rather good) old pic to illustrate your blog is a bit puerile?

    3. You are, aren't you? I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, even though I'm at the opposite end.

    4. by any measurement - voting habits, political beliefs & party membership - I'm not, & here's you claiming to be 'factual'.

    5. Happy to stand corrected, merely the impression I've arrived at from everything I've seen you say.

    u'll be referring, of course, to all the articles I've written slagging off the Scottish Tory Party (of which there are many)

    Image will appear as a link
    1. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    2. and don't you think labelling me a 'Tory' & using a (rather good) old pic to illustrate your blog is a bit puerile?

    3. You are, aren't you? I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, even though I'm at the opposite end.

    4. by any measurement - voting habits, political beliefs & party membership - I'm not, & here's you claiming to be 'factual'.

    5. Happy to stand corrected, merely the impression I've arrived at from everything I've seen you say.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. Not quite sure why believing in basic X>Y arithmetic makes one a "deranged maniac", but as you like.

    2. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    3. and don't you think labelling me a 'Tory' & using a (rather good) old pic to illustrate your blog is a bit puerile?

    4. You are, aren't you? I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, even though I'm at the opposite end.

    and if it's nothing to be ashamed of, why did your pejorative use of the term & picture feature so prominently in your blog?

    Image will appear as a link
    1. "Pejorative"? In what sense? Mentioned it once, in the phrase "Tory commentator David Torrance", which doesn't seem to fit.

    2. to imply political bias/allegiance in a commentator is generally pejorative. Your use of that pic underlined that general aim

    3. I've repeatedly said on the site that there's nothing wrong with commentators having allegiances. They're people too.

    1. Not quite sure why believing in basic X>Y arithmetic makes one a "deranged maniac", but as you like.

    2. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    3. and don't you think labelling me a 'Tory' & using a (rather good) old pic to illustrate your blog is a bit puerile?

    4. You are, aren't you? I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, even though I'm at the opposite end.

    by any measurement - voting habits, political beliefs & party membership - I'm not, & here's you claiming to be 'factual'.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. Except the referendum isn't an election, is it? Who wins if there are two Yes votes and one No vote?

    2. anyway enough, as a pal once said: you can't shout logic at a maniac & expect to win the argument. Happy (deranged) blogging.

    3. Not quite sure why believing in basic X>Y arithmetic makes one a "deranged maniac", but as you like.

    4. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    and don't you think labelling me a 'Tory' & using a (rather good) old pic to illustrate your blog is a bit puerile?

    1. Except the referendum isn't an election, is it? Who wins if there are two Yes votes and one No vote?

    2. anyway enough, as a pal once said: you can't shout logic at a maniac & expect to win the argument. Happy (deranged) blogging.

    3. Not quite sure why believing in basic X>Y arithmetic makes one a "deranged maniac", but as you like.

    4. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    no, you're the deranged maniac, who (ironically) gives your own side a bad name; you'd need self-awareness to appreciate that

    Image will appear as a link
    1. I'm aware of soaring readership figures, but they're probably all psycho nutjobs too, I suppose. Gnite.

  5. anyway, you pair are supposed to be blocked. If there were a twitter ombudsman I'd complain.

    Image will appear as a link
  6. I love the use of the prefix 'Rev' to imbue a maniac with a phoney sense of authority & sanity, nice tough.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. In fact I am one, albeit somewhat lapsed. But crikey, Dave, you've got an awful lot of anger there.

    2. Never said a remotely unpleasant word about you until now, but I'm a "paranoid deranged maniac". Ach well.

    1. uve outdone yourself in terms of paranoid ramblings.Definition of 'majority' in electoral terms widely understood except by u

    2. Except the referendum isn't an election, is it? Who wins if there are two Yes votes and one No vote?

    3. anyway enough, as a pal once said: you can't shout logic at a maniac & expect to win the argument. Happy (deranged) blogging.

    4. Not quite sure why believing in basic X>Y arithmetic makes one a "deranged maniac", but as you like.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    2. no, you're the deranged maniac, who (ironically) gives your own side a bad name; you'd need self-awareness to appreciate that

    3. I'm aware of soaring readership figures, but they're probably all psycho nutjobs too, I suppose. Gnite.

    4. and don't you think labelling me a 'Tory' & using a (rather good) old pic to illustrate your blog is a bit puerile?

    5. You are, aren't you? I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, even though I'm at the opposite end.

  7. anyway enough, as a pal once said: you can't shout logic at a maniac & expect to win the argument. Happy (deranged) blogging.

    Image will appear as a link
    1. Not quite sure why believing in basic X>Y arithmetic makes one a "deranged maniac", but as you like.

    2. ZING! Must be a lot of deranged maniacs in Scotland, then. But as a Tory I imagine you think that already.

    3. no, you're the deranged maniac, who (ironically) gives your own side a bad name; you'd need self-awareness to appreciate that

    4. I'm aware of soaring readership figures, but they're probably all psycho nutjobs too, I suppose. Gnite.

  8. um, that wd make a 2-to-1 victory for 'yes'. You can't strip out don't knows in a referendum, thus no one in UK polling does.

    Image will appear as a link
  9. uve outdone yourself in terms of paranoid ramblings.Definition of 'majority' in electoral terms widely understood except by u

    Image will appear as a link
    1. Except the referendum isn't an election, is it? Who wins if there are two Yes votes and one No vote?

    2. People who don't know either pick a side or stay home. Side that gets the most votes has a "majority" by definition.

    3. um, that wd make a 2-to-1 victory for 'yes'. You can't strip out don't knows in a referendum, thus no one in UK polling does.

    4. anyway enough, as a pal once said: you can't shout logic at a maniac & expect to win the argument. Happy (deranged) blogging.

  10. from memory, the sample size was extremely small; needs to be around 1,000 to be considered accurate/scientific.

  11. not being negative (yr spin), trying to assess Labour support fr indy. It's clearly v small; u've offered no evidence to contrary

  12. fair point re: 2011 polling but it's still a logical (and incorrect) leap from that to arguing online polls are just as reliable

  13. sorry, but they're not as accurate as official polls. You appear to be the only one who believes that.

  14. you know full well that 1800 'likes' offers no guidance to levels of support. Organised Labour for Indy clearly has v few members

  15. I've sent you a compelling argument, u've sent me 1unscientific poll, so we're equal. This chat is now rather futile, so g'night.

  16. online polls are interesting but not reliable guides to public opinion. No mainstream party (including SNP) takes them seriously

  17. sorry, you can quote all the online polls you want but they don't count, not least because they're wide open to manipulation.

  18. engagement is key :) Remember, majority support means 50%+ and the sample size has to be around 1,000 to be deemed accurate.

  19. hang on, were these proper polls or online surveys in which people could vote online? There is an obvious difference.

  20. fair enough, but are you saying it's no longer online? And how many STV polls were there showing majority support?

  21. compelling contrast of 45% SNP vote in '11 & consistent pro-indy polling of around 33%:how do you conclude Lab support from that?

  22. un, u presented me with a single source which wasn't reliable. Others have sent me a single poll showing 20% Lab support for indy

  23. haven't ignored them as I remember the ones you're talking about, but sample sizes were always too small to take them seriously.

  24. fair point, but it doesn't really count as it had a qualification in the question (i.e. Tories winning next election).

  25. I stand corrected, last 1 was in the Telegraph in 2006. There was another just b4 '92 election, which shd rmbr!

  26. Thanks to everyone who responded to my query abt indy polling: seems only one poll (Telegraph, '06) in 'recent years' shows maj indy support

  27. ok, even acc'g 06 as 'recent', BJ said more than one poll, when in fact it's just one poll. You can't concede anything can you? :)

  28. I stand corrected on that point (see, I can admit mistakes), but it still makes what BJ said on Scotland Tonight wrong.

  29. only one of those is a majority 'yes' vote (ie more than 50%) and that was back in 2006. Not sure how that makes me wrong.

  30. indy ahead but not a majority. As far as I can remember the last poll (with decent sample size) was early 90s.

  31. links please? And when I said 'majority for indy' I mean more than 50%; and a sample size of around 1,000.

  32. remember the Express poll, it had a minuscule sample & was widely dismissed at time. Last major poll to show maj was in early '90s.

    1. said independence supporters believe independence will cure all Scotland's problems, nobody I know claims it will

    Image will appear as a link
    1. Agree, there are a vocal few but that's the case with all 'causes'. We're not all so naive.

    2. there probably are a very small minority out there. I'm sure an independent Scotland will be better, but it wont be perfect

  33. Blair Jenkins says he can 'remember polls in recent years' which show a majority for indy. Anyone know which he's referring to?

  34. At Millbank studios to do on ever-thorny issue of the UK's membership of European Union (is that a new hashtag?)

  35. such as? Voter expectations, in terms of tax levels, etc, are quite markedly different in Scandinavian nations

  36. I've never been asked to write for :( Glad you liked the piece - same paradox applies to other parties too, obviously

  37. On chief exec of the Yes campaign, Blair Jenkins - discussing Europe, political commentator David Torrance..