User talk:John MacIntyre OBE

Changes to Scottish independence referendum, 2014
Could you please justify your repeated edits to this page? You have not added anything of merit; you are introducing editorialism to what was previously a perfectly neutral paragraph.

In particular, this segment is uncalled for: "However, it transpired that the section of Creighton's follow-up email quoting Angus Robertson had been re-produced verbatim from an SNP press release issued on 6 November 2012."

It is not at all notable that a quote from Angus Robertson of the SNP was also included in a press release from the SNP. All political parties quote their own MPs in their press releases.

Additionally, changing "agreed" to "referred to" is a petty change that is twisting the meaning of Creighton's comments. Zcbeaton (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As it stood, this section of the Wiki entry on the 2014 referendum was not neutral. For example, it omitted what are arguably the mains points made in Lucinda Creighton’s follow-up email i.e. “I did answer the question about hypothetical negotiations with the EU. '''I think it is clear that a newly independent state would have to (and would have the right to and indeed should) negotiate the terms of membership, as they would undoubtedly be somewhat different to the existing terms. I did say that this would take some time, which I expect it would'''.” These were the main points of the BBC’s reports on the interview and the main points of contention about the interview. It is right that the highlighted section of Lucinda Creighton’s email should be recorded in the Wiki entry.

As the entry records, “Scottish Labour's Johann Lamont later accused the Scottish Government of ‘bombard[ing Creighton] with abuse’ over her original comments.” See, for example, the Official Report of the Scottish Parliament on 31 January 2013 (FMQs) where the reference is to “bombarded with complaints”. Two of the unanswered questions here are (a) the extent to which the SNP Government placed pressure on Lucinda Creighton to send her follow-up email; and (b) the extent to which the SNP Government contributed to the drafting of Lucinda Creigton’s follow-up email. My edit does not speculate on either (a) or (b). However, my edit notes a factual point which is that the section of Lucinda Creighton’s email that refers to Angus Robertson’s comments re-produces verbatim a section from an SNP press release issued on 6 November 2012 – almost 3 months before Lucinda Creighton’s email. (Incidentally, the original Wiki entry incorrectly referred to Andrew Robertson.)


 * Lucinda Creighton’s Email
 * “As SNP Westminster Leader, Angus Robertson said ‘Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence’, and that ‘The EU would adopt a simplified procedure for the negotiations, not the traditional procedure followed for the accession of non-member countries’.”
 * SNP Press Release 6 November 2012
 * “He [Angus Robertson] went on to advise that ‘Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence’, and that ‘The EU would adopt a simplified procedure for the negotiations, not the traditional procedure followed for the accession of non-member countries’.”
 * “He [Angus Robertson] went on to advise that ‘Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence’, and that ‘The EU would adopt a simplified procedure for the negotiations, not the traditional procedure followed for the accession of non-member countries’.”

Lucinda Creighton’s email says, “I think that sums up the situation quite well.” But Lucinda Creighton does not say that she "agreed" with Angus Robertson’s comments. My edit accurately uses the words "referred to” instead of the inaccurate “agreed”.


 * Saying "I think that sums up the situation quite well" is a hell of a lot closer to agreement than "referral", which doesn't convey anything other than the fact that she quoted him. Why don't we change the paragraph so it explicitly quotes her response to Robertson's comments? I also contest strongly that there is anything notable about the quote originating from an SNP press release. It was very likely her source when she wrote the email, and that shouldn't surprise anyone. I also think that observation crosses into WP:NOR territory, since you're linking to evidence rather than a source -- you should not include "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources".


 * I take no issue with that specific quote of Creighton -- as you may notice, the only changes I made to your original edit were in context, not quotes. I take issue predominantly with your reinforcement that she "confirmed" what she already told the BBC, because, again, that is not said in the sources, nor has she said that. In fact, she went as far as to say, in her email: "I am concerned that an interview which I conducted with the BBC is being misconstrued". This means it is perfectly valid to use the word "clarify" here. Zcbeaton (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________

Lucinda Creighton’s follow-up email says, "I am concerned that an interview which I conducted with the BBC is being misconstrued". Lucinda Creighton did not assert in her email that the BBC had mis-reported her interview. On the contrary, Lucinda Creighton confirms that, “I did answer the question about hypothetical negotiations with the EU.”; “I did say that this would take some time”; and “I also went on to say”. In this context, therefore, it is correct to say that Lucinda Creighton confirmed in her email what she had said in her BBC interview.

I am content to include the words, or a reference to the words, “I think that sums up the situation quite well.” - in place of the inaccurate “agreed”.

Lucinda Creighton’s email says, “As SNP Westminster Leader, Angus Robertson said” – but there is no reference to the source of Angus Robertson’s words, or the context in which he said those words. The source of Angus Roberston’s words is an SNP press release issued on 6 November 2012 with the relevant section beginning, “Speaking about Croatian membership of the EU Mr Robertson said:” A reference to the source of Angus Robertson’s words as referred to by Lucinda Creighton is therefore wholly appropriate and necessary. This part of my edit is not an observation – it is a valid and wholly appropriate reference to the source of the comments by Angus Robertson quoted in Lucinda Creighton’s email.


 * Regardless of whether or not Creighton made the same comments to the BBC, her intent when writing to Sturgeon -- especially with the admission that her interview responses could have been "miscontrued" -- was clearly to clarify her comments. It seems entirely appropriate, then, to say "clarify" in the article, rather than simply "confirm" or "repeat".


 * I also still don't see the need to cite the SNP press release. A sentence that basically amounts to "Creighton quoted Robertson" needs only a single citation. If you really want to link to the SNP's press release, you could insert it in the form of a citation immediately after "comments by the SNP's Angus Robertson", but there is no need to include a separate sentence, especially with language like "it transpired", which is an observation and therefore WP:NOR. Zcbeaton (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)