Sir Tom Devine, changes his mind again

[LongTimeLurker]

My guess would be something said he thought was being said off the record inadvertantly made its way into print. Journalists at that sort of level of newspaper don't tend to make quotes up.

[pandarilla]

It's pretty hard to misrepresent the words "I would not vote the same way" without making them up.

His point was that he still believes in the cause of independence but thinks it would be a mistake for the snp to try and force another election so soon - even if triggered by Europe.

In that case he would abstain (I think that's what he said). The times article makes it look like he's had a complete change of heart.

[Jambomo]

That expression, "gross calumny and falsehood" is a very equivocal and evasive way of saying "I did not say those words."

No it isn't, I'd say it an extremely unequivocal and straightforward way of saying that he didn't use those words.

What exactly is evasive in using gross calumny and falsehood? Both very clearly mean that what is said is false and calumny suggest a deliberate attempt at misrepresenting his position.

[Antlion]

His point was that he still believes in the cause of independence but thinks it would be a mistake for the snp to try and force another election so soon - even if triggered by Europe.

In that case he would abstain (I think that's what he said). The times article makes it look like he's had a complete change of heart.

This. He was interviewed at noon today by Gordon Brewer and made the above explicit and clear.

[The_Kincardine]

That Tam Devine got a K and is regarded as an historian is to Scotland's shame. He's a trumped-up sweetie wife.

[Antlion]

That Tam Devine got a K and is regarded as an historian is to Scotland's shame. He's a trumped-up sweetie wife.

More offended by his knighthood than his professorship. The priorities of the BritNat ...

[Glenconner]

That Tam Devine got a K and is regarded as an historian is to Scotland's shame. He's a trumped-up sweetie wife.

Seething

????

[Ad Lib]

His point was that he still believes in the cause of independence but thinks it would be a mistake for the snp to try and force another election so soon - even if triggered by Europe.

In that case he would abstain (I think that's what he said). The times article makes it look like he's had a complete change of heart.

At absolutely no point does The Times' article suggest that he would vote No. It merely says that he said he wouldn't vote the same way as he did last time.

Unless he was lying last time, he voted Yes. So when he says "I would not vote the same way" he means that he would not vote Yes again. Abstaining is one of the things you could do if you didn't vote Yes again. So the article isn't misleading.

[Ad Lib]

No it isn't, I'd say it an extremely unequivocal and straightforward way of saying that he didn't use those words.

What exactly is evasive in using gross calumny and falsehood? Both very clearly mean that what is said is false and calumny suggest a deliberate attempt at misrepresenting his position.

Because it was used to dismiss "the story" and not "the quote".

[Antlion]

At absolutely no point does The Times' article suggest that he would vote No. It merely says that he said he wouldn't vote the same way as he did last time.

Unless he was lying last time, he voted Yes. So when he says "I would not vote the same way" he means that he would not vote Yes again. Abstaining is one of the things you could do if you didn't vote Yes again. So the article isn't misleading.

"Campaigners for Scottish independence have lost the support of the countrys leading historian, who voted yes in the 2014 referendum. Sir Tom Devine told The Times that he would not do so again, because the Nationalists had failed to answer key questions about the impact of independence."

He said never said he would "not do so again". He said he would abstain in a putative referendum held under a specific set of circumstances. He has unequivocally stated that he would vote for Scotland's independence in future.

[pandarilla]

At absolutely no point does The Times' article suggest that he would vote No. It merely says that he said he wouldn't vote the same way as he did last time.

Unless he was lying last time, he voted Yes. So when he says "I would not vote the same way" he means that he would not vote Yes again. Abstaining is one of the things you could do if you didn't vote Yes again. So the article isn't misleading.

Oh for f**k sake. Are you able to have a grown up, reasonable conversation on any topic?

Articles can very easily infer and emphasise points. The times article did not reflect his position. It trumped it up and twisted it to create a story.

[pandarilla]

That Tam Devine got a K and is regarded as an historian is to Scotland's shame. He's a trumped-up sweetie wife.

We might fall out over this kincy. I couldn't give a flying f**k who gets a knighthood but devine is an excellent historian.

Sweetie wife indeed.

[Antlion]

Oh for f**k sake. Are you able to have a grown up, reasonable conversation on any topic?

Articles can very easily infer and emphasise points. The times article did not reflect his position. It trumped it up and twisted it to create a story.

The article doesn't even mention abstaining. Devine had to clarify that himself, and explain the circumstances under which he would do it, today.

Why didn't it? Because the Times knew it would get more mileage out of claiming that "campaigners for independence" had "lost his support". That strongly implies that he has given up on supporting an independent Scotland himself, when he has not.

Ad Lib knows this, but Ad Lib is fresh out of a Liberal Democrat conference, and thus very likely buzzing to exercise pedantry in the defence of lying, misrepresenting and generally being a mendacious, incompetent version of Machiavelli. It's the nasty party's bread and butter.

[Ad Lib]

"Campaigners for Scottish independence have lost the support of the countrys leading historian, who voted yes in the 2014 referendum. Sir Tom Devine told The Times that he would not do so again, because the Nationalists had failed to answer key questions about the impact of independence."

He said never said he would "not do so again". He said he would abstain in a putative referendum held under a specific set of circumstances. He has unequivocally stated that he would vote for Scotland's independence in future.

The verbatim quote is "I would not vote the same way" and the quote, directly, goes on to explain the conditions that would be required for him to change his mind again and to vote Yes. The article at no point implies that he would "never do so again" or that his "would not do so again" was unconditional. Indeed it goes to some length both directly quoting and paraphrasing him, as to what would be required for him to vote Yes in future.

[Ad Lib]

Oh for f**k sake. Are you able to have a grown up, reasonable conversation on any topic?

Articles can very easily infer and emphasise points. The times article did not reflect his position. It trumped it up and twisted it to create a story.

The article does not say, infer or emphasise anything that is inconsistent with him stating that he would not vote Yes in a future referendum. It was he specifically that said he would not do so, and he specifically who said he would abstain. Those are true statements, regardless of emphasis and the article does not go beyond that.

[The_Kincardine]

We might fall out over this kincy. I couldn't give a flying f**k who gets a knighthood but devine is an excellent historian.

Sweetie wife indeed.

Seconds away then, Pandy. Absolutely nothing I've read by wee Tam makes him an historian. Good at fireside tales and cheery homilies.

His credentials as an historian have as much credibility as his credentials as a political 'thinker'. Shame really. I usually want to like blokes from Motherwell.

[Antlion]

The verbatim quote is "I would not vote the same way" and the quote, directly, goes on to explain the conditions that would be required for him to change his mind again and to vote Yes. The article at no point implies that he would "never do so again" or that his "would not do so again" was unconditional. Indeed it goes to some length both directly quoting and paraphrasing him, as to what would be required for him to vote Yes in future.

Let's try a little exercise. Here's the original Times quote, given its own paragraph at the start of the article.

"Campaigners for Scottish independence have lost the support of the countrys leading historian, who voted yes in the 2014 referendum. Sir Tom Devine told The Times that he would not do so again, because the Nationalists had failed to answer key questions about the impact of independence."

Now here is another version of that:

"Campaigners for a second referendum have lost the support of the countrys leading historian, who voted yes in the 2014 referendum. Sir Tom Devine told The Times that he would not do so again until the Nationalists answered key questions about the impact of independence."

The second version conveys what Devine actually went on to say. But the opening one conveys something quite different. I think a character as consistently eager to harp on the meaning conveyed by semantics and the presentation of phrasing can see the clear difference there.

If you pretend you cannot, then I can only assume you're still in full Liberal Democrat mode. Weasel words are, after all, the party's stock in trade.

[Antlion]

The article does not say, infer or emphasise anything that is inconsistent with him stating that he would not vote Yes in a future referendum. It was he specifically that said he would not do so, and he specifically who said he would abstain. Those are true statements, regardless of emphasis and the article does not go beyond that.

Where does the article state that he would abstain?

[pandarilla]

The article does not say, infer or emphasise anything that is inconsistent with him stating that he would not vote Yes in a future referendum. It was he specifically that said he would not do so, and he specifically who said he would abstain. Those are true statements, regardless of emphasis and the article does not go beyond that.

The first paragraph misrepresents devine's position. I highly doubt this was due to a less than clear explanation by the very thorough historian. The times are being a wee bit devious here.

[Antlion]

The first paragraph misrepresents devine's position. I highly doubt this was due to a less than clear explanation by the very thorough historian. The times are being a wee bit devious here.

I'm not sure why Ad Lib thinks we ought to accept his staunch defence of the Times. Someone of actual relevance to this story (and to Scottish politics in general), namely the Professor himself, has stated that the article as is constitutes a "gross falsehood and calumny".

Now who are we going to listen to - the subject of the article or the finger puppet of a dying party best known for comprising unprincipled, unelectable cockwombles?