Sam Coates saying he is finding more and more conservative mps upset by Boris apology and are waiting for Sue Grey report
Quite what she's going to tell them that they don't already know, I've no idea. Perhaps they're hoping for yet more damaging leaks in the meantime, to give them cover to act? It's all a bit weak.
Brief after work drinks in the workplace is not a party
Your integrity is becoming yet one more of Johnson's casualties, H, and it's painful to see.
Would it not be better to replace him so you can get behind the party again with a clean conscience?
No, it would be as damaging longer term to the party as removing Thatcher was in 1990 and set in motion a civil war which would in effect last for almost 2 decades. Most of which we would again spend in opposition
What's damaged the Tory party is the absence of anyone in Number Ten with the sense and influence over Johnson to have prevented him from trashing his Premiership with the Paterson fiasco.
There are no Johnson loyalists who will fight a civil war in the party on his behalf if he is pushed out, and I don't see what significant change of policy would follow from a change of PM at this stage. No new PM is going to make a drastic change of policy on Brexit - this is very different from 1990 when it was felt that Thatcher was brought down by the pro-Europeans.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
Really? I'd have thought the Guardian would be cheering him on.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
That reminds me. You still have not answered my question: should the UK have given India independence? The Indians wanted it, but the UK by its laws had no need to grant it.
Churchill's Tory government never did, only Attlee's Labour government did
Churchill did not lead a Conservative government till after Indian independence.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Ever heard of the Declaration of Perth?
Scottish Tories are always swinging their willies in the wind, but whenever push comes to shove they always go for the meekest, most cringeworthy, cowardly position.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
I hope that he stays because I am now convinced he's an electoral liability and tories have a particular knack for thinking past success is an indication of future performance.
However, my guess is that they will remove him. If he was competent I'd think differently but he isn't. He's inept as PM so they will oust him this year.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Asymmetric devolution didn't stop SLAB MPs becoming PM or getting positions in the Cabinet - even ones whose responsibilities had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament (i.e. John Reid as Health Secretary).
Things have changed quite a lot since the early 2000s.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
That reminds me. You still have not answered my question: should the UK have given India independence? The Indians wanted it, but the UK by its laws had no need to grant it.
Churchill's Tory government never did, only Attlee's Labour government did
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
Really? I'd have thought the Guardian would be cheering him on.
I though it is rather telling the immediate reaction of the BBC journalist is well yes everybody know he did terrible things, but is this the way. I very much doubt the general reaction to Colston statue being ripped down was such a nuanced stance.
Brief after work drinks in the workplace is not a party
Your integrity is becoming yet one more of Johnson's casualties, H, and it's painful to see.
Would it not be better to replace him so you can get behind the party again with a clean conscience?
No, it would be as damaging longer term to the party as removing Thatcher was in 1990 and set in motion a civil war which would in effect last for almost 2 decades. Most of which we would again spend in opposition
What's damaged the Tory party is the absence of anyone in Number Ten with the sense and influence over Johnson to have prevented him from trashing his Premiership with the Paterson fiasco.
There are no Johnson loyalists who will fight a civil war in the party on his behalf if he is pushed out, and I don't see what significant change of policy would follow from a change of PM at this stage. No new PM is going to make a drastic change of policy on Brexit - this is very different from 1990 when it was felt that Thatcher was brought down by the pro-Europeans.
If it leads to a more pro restrictions approach from a new PM, perfectly possible under Gove or Hunt or Javid or even Sunak, then that certainly would see a civil war
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
That reminds me. You still have not answered my question: should the UK have given India independence? The Indians wanted it, but the UK by its laws had no need to grant it.
Churchill's Tory government never did, only Attlee's Labour government did
Come on, answer my question, were Labour right to give India independence, please? I'm trying to work out youir limits, seeing as you support independence for Wales and Antrim (the former in the UK, the latter still sort of).
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
That reminds me. You still have not answered my question: should the UK have given India independence? The Indians wanted it, but the UK by its laws had no need to grant it.
Churchill's Tory government never did, only Attlee's Labour government did
Churchill did not lead a Conservative government till after Indian independence.
It was as Conservative a government as Cameron's from 2010-15, in fact even more so as the Tories had a majority of Commons seats
The judge has now rejected that argument, forcing Andrew to either fight the case or seek a settlement with his accuser. Some observers have also speculated that he will stop engaging with the case now that a judge has signalled that it will go ahead, leaving him open to a default judgment.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
I suppose you could argue there is a moral difference between a statue erected to commemorate an evil man, and a statue of something else, carved by an evil man (or a painting painted, or a song sung, etc)
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
If the mob hadn't ripped down Colston, rather protested against it, I am 99.9% certain the council would have taken action anyway and everybody could have claimed the moral high ground.
As you say though, the people who decide what can be shown are totally inconsistent when it comes to what they believe should result in being cancelled or not. The list is as long as your arm, where a blind eye is turned to their crimes and others straight on the naughty list.
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
"Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt ‘international harmony’
"Emails to Dr Anthony Fauci show ‘likely’ explanation identified at start of coronavirus pandemic, but there were worries about saying so"
"Leading British and US scientists thought it was likely that Covid accidentally leaked from a laboratory but were concerned that further debate would harm science in China, emails show.
"An email from Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, on February 2 2020 said that “a likely explanation” was that Covid had rapidly evolved from a Sars-like virus inside human tissue in a low-security lab.
"The email, to Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Francis Collins of the US National Institutes of Health, went on to say that such evolution may have “accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans”.
It probably came from the lab, as I have been telling you for 18 months. This was also the opinion of many leading scientists right from the start, as I have been telling you for 18 months. it was probably engineered in the lab to be more transmissible, as I have been telling you for 18 months. But for various reasons there was a high level conspiracy to cover this up and crush an extremely plausible hypothesis: lab leak. As I have been telling you for 18 months.
So they found one senior scientist who thought it was 50/50 and another 60/40. Not exactly conclusive? Unknowable this one.
That's Jeremy Farrar, the leader of the Wellcome Trust, who thought it was 70/30 lab leak, and said so
Also this, from the earliest emails:
"In the emails, Sir Jeremy said that other scientists also believed the virus could not have evolved naturally. One such scientist was Professor Mike Farzan, of Scripps Research, the expert who discovered how the original Sars virus binds to human cells.
Scientists were particularly concerned by a part of Covid-19 called the furin cleavage site, a section of the spike protein which helps it enter cells and makes it so infectious to humans.
Summarising Professor Farzan’s concerns in an email, Sir Jeremy said: “He is bothered by the furin site and has a hard time (to) explain that as an event outside the lab, though there are possible ways in nature but highly unlikely."
And these guys
"The emails also show that Bob Garry, of the University of Texas, was unconvinced that Covid-19 emerged naturally.
“I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature,” he said.
"Professor Andrew Rambaut, from the University of Edinburgh, also said that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual”. "
And there are dozens more if you look at what is being revealed, right now, in the USA, it is all spilling out
But of course you know better, but also you know that all this is "unknowable" so let's not bother trying to know. But you still somehow know. Is that right?
Farrar changed his mind from 70/30 to 50/50 so over time thought it less likely. If you ask him today he might give a different percentage again. In five years time yet another percentage. I doubt even he will get to 100/0 so yes for the likes of you and I it is unknowable. Perhaps a few people in the CCP or the Wuhan lab do really know.
Even if it was entirely zoonotic in origin, we will probably never know, because you can't prove it didn't escape from the Wuhan lab.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Suspect that a jury will show this guy that the previous jury didn't create a precedent, and he is going to spend time in jail.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Ever heard of the Declaration of Perth?
Scottish Tories are always swinging their willies in the wind, but whenever push comes to shove they always go for the meekest, most cringeworthy, cowardly position.
BTW did you see my comment earlier on the apparent junking of the No Surrender to Indy in Auchenshuggle Cooncil leaflet strategy?
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
Principle, innit. She set the rules and broke them.
Brief after work drinks in the workplace is not a party
Your integrity is becoming yet one more of Johnson's casualties, H, and it's painful to see.
Would it not be better to replace him so you can get behind the party again with a clean conscience?
No, it would be as damaging longer term to the party as removing Thatcher was in 1990 and set in motion a civil war which would in effect last for almost 2 decades. Most of which we would again spend in opposition
Hear hear!
Stand fast, you gallant, stalwart Tories.
And keep Boris as your brave standard-bearer into the next general election (and maybe even beyond it, if loonies like you are representative)!
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
Time will show that the Colston verdict was deeply pernicious and irresponsible
No it was excellent.
We have a right to decide whom we venerate in our own towns. A slave trader isn't one of them.
The only people I know who are upset over this are middle-aged white men. And Alison Pearson, obvs.
Polls show that you are absolutely wrong. Most people are open to controversial statues being taken down by democratic consent, they do NOT like it done in an hour by a mob
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
Boris's viewpoint seems to always be what can I use to get out of this mess. The problem is that he is rapidly running out of road as his previous statements catch up with him leaving him fewer and fewer options that don't contradict what he's already said.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
That reminds me. You still have not answered my question: should the UK have given India independence? The Indians wanted it, but the UK by its laws had no need to grant it.
Churchill's Tory government never did, only Attlee's Labour government did
Come on, answer my question, were Labour right to give India independence, please? I'm trying to work out youir limits, seeing as you support independence for Wales and Antrim (the former in the UK, the latter still sort of).
No I don't, I voted for more Tory candidates than Plaid even in that town council election and I want to keep NI in the UK, just Antrim may prefer UDI to joining Ireland.
Churchill did oppose Indian independence at the time, so had I been a Tory MP from say 1935 to 1945 then I probably would have opposed Indian independence at the time. However India did go independent and we have to accept it is now an independent nation, albeit still within the Commonwealth.
However India is a different case from Scotland as it was a colony without MPs, Scotland is part of the UK with MPs and its own parliament.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
What Scots decide is f**k all to do with you.
The UK government constitutionally and legally has the final say over the Union and it will decide if and when an indyref2 is ever allowed
You're wrong on this. Boris losing Scottish Tory MSPs en masse is really bad for him
I wonder if the PM will go sooner rather than later
Scottish MSPs are in Holyrood, not even Westminster.
Though yes I think a VONC may now occur, albeit I still think Boris could win it about 55% to 45%
As we know, that margin of victory kills rebellions stone dead. Titter.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Ever heard of the Declaration of Perth?
Scottish Tories are always swinging their willies in the wind, but whenever push comes to shove they always go for the meekest, most cringeworthy, cowardly position.
Not until you mentioned it, though one's bound to point out that 1968 was rather a long time ago, and things have changed a bit since.
Perhaps the Scottish Tories will surprise you this time? Though most likely they'll do nothing and you'll be proven right. Anyway, I'm just showing a casual interest and floating some ideas. I don't have a dog in this particular fight.
Scottish Tory Douglas Ross says Boris Johnson should resign - and says he will write to the 1922 Committee to express no confidence in his leadership. "It's his government that put these rules in place, and he has to be held to account for his actions." https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1481294784652324871
Scottish Tory MPs are less than 2% of Tory MPs overall
Must be because the Union is so tremendously popular north of the border.
Opinion north of the border does not matter to a Tory government which would have a big majority even with 0 Scottish MPs and can refuse indyref2 indefinitely.
Otherwise Scots have Holyrood for most of their domestic policy anyway
Lets pick this apart: "Opinion north of the border does not matter to a Tory government"
So the opinion of elected Scottish Conservative MPs doesn't matter? The opinion of the leader of the party in Scotland doesn't matter?
"and can refuse indyref2 indefinitely"
As you have no respect for party colleagues north of the border and do not think their opinions matter, I can understand why you keep reposting this.
Unionist my arse. You vote for Welsh Nationalists, provide succour to Scottish Nationalists and only care about England.
Not compared to the majority of the Party that is not Scottish, it does not have a veto in the Tory Party as it does not have a veto UK wide either.
England does not even have its own parliament unlike Scotland however so Scots should stop whinging
Scots should stop whinging
We are talking about the Leader of the Scottish Conservative Party.
That you think he should "stop whinging" just demonstrates how mad you have gone today. Are there enemies within? Your own MPs and officials need now to be cast out for their crimes of pointing at the stark naked Prime Minister and saying " what clothes, we can see your cock"?
Truly Mad.
On reflection, HYUFD might have a point. He and his fellow ideologues can't have whinging remainer or pretend remainer Jocks within the party. And I can't see ahy successor to Mr J being any more sympathetic. Which raises a serious question about what happens to the Scottish Tories, whose entire rationale is union with London.
Political union with London, but not necessarily party union with the English and Welsh Tory Party. There's every case for a Scottish only Unionist Party.
Except that the very action of splitting is a huge political defeat for them. The last serious proposal was brutally stamped out.
Not at all - if they bring it about after it being denied before, especially if there is a tussle, it will give them renewed credentials with the Scottish electorate.
Face palm.
Given that you're not even part of the Scottish electorate, your response isn't looked for, thanks anyway.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
The judge has now rejected that argument, forcing Andrew to either fight the case or seek a settlement with his accuser. Some observers have also speculated that he will stop engaging with the case now that a judge has signalled that it will go ahead, leaving him open to a default judgment.
Brief after work drinks in the workplace is not a party
Your integrity is becoming yet one more of Johnson's casualties, H, and it's painful to see.
Would it not be better to replace him so you can get behind the party again with a clean conscience?
No, it would be as damaging longer term to the party as removing Thatcher was in 1990 and set in motion a civil war which would in effect last for almost 2 decades. Most of which we would again spend in opposition
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
Time will show that the Colston verdict was deeply pernicious and irresponsible
The more it happens the less I suspect juries will be willing to let it slide.
Again, the jury were offered a binary choice: give these young people – who in every other respect had made and will likely continue to make a good contribution to society – a criminal record and possible custodial term or acquit them.
On balance, ten of twelve jurors decided the latter was the lesser of two wrongs. If we continue to propose punishments that are disproportionate to the crime, we shouldn't be surprised if juries opt to nullify.
Word on the provincial taxi driver's, er, street car, in no particular order:
1) what were the rules then in any case 2) at least he got us through Brexit 3) didn't Nicola Sturgeon break the rules also (this from her husband so they had discussed) 4) what about the other people at the party - they also knew it was against the rules if it was and all attended nevertheless.
He must be praying even more trhan most dutiful sons for the indefinite postponement of London Bridge, after which the purse strings of the Duchy of Lancaster estate are going to be fastened against him
Bad day for poshos all round.
The Prince Andrew ruling is a victory for women
The effect is a ‘win’ for Virginia Roberts Giuffre – she can continue her quest for justice in open court
As I have repeatedly said I am not an American lawyer but the decision of the Judge is bewildering. He said:
"In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant."
The question of whether the agreement is binding on the claimant is not a matter of the parties' subjective intentions or wishes. It is a matter of the legal interpretation of a legal document. In the UK evidence as to intention is simply not admissible. It is possible in some circumstances to have evidence about the background circumstances of the agreement but in general this is only permissible if there is an inherent ambiguity in it.
I would be very surprised if American law was different to this. The Judge should either have determined that the agreement was irrelevant on the basis that Andrew was not a party to it or determined that the natural construction is that he was a potential defendant and therefore had the benefit of it. He has dodged the issue.
The BBC are reporting that a right of appeal on this point requires the leave of the Judge and that he is unlikely to grant that. I think we shall see. Most courts would want a determination on such a preliminary issue before the parties went to the cost and inconvenience of proof.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
That reminds me. You still have not answered my question: should the UK have given India independence? The Indians wanted it, but the UK by its laws had no need to grant it.
Churchill's Tory government never did, only Attlee's Labour government did
Come on, answer my question, were Labour right to give India independence, please? I'm trying to work out youir limits, seeing as you support independence for Wales and Antrim (the former in the UK, the latter still sort of).
No I don't, I voted for more Tory candidates than Plaid even in that town council election and I want to keep NI in the UK, just Antrim may prefer UDI to joining Ireland.
Churchill did oppose Indian independence at the time, so had I been a Tory MP from say 1935 to 1945 then I probably would have opposed Indian independence at the time. However India did go independent and we have to accept it is now an independent nation, albeit still within the Commonwealth.
However India is a different case from Scotland as it was a colony without MPs, Scotland is part of the UK with MPs and its own parliament.
You're still not answeing my question, but blaming everyone and everything else.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Suspect that a jury will show this guy that the previous jury didn't create a precedent, and he is going to spend time in jail.
Well we have seen this before. Pissy man went to jail for handing himself in and apologising for being a total dickhead of having a pee next to a memorial, man who set like to Union Flag at the Cenotaph, not jailed.
"Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt ‘international harmony’
"Emails to Dr Anthony Fauci show ‘likely’ explanation identified at start of coronavirus pandemic, but there were worries about saying so"
"Leading British and US scientists thought it was likely that Covid accidentally leaked from a laboratory but were concerned that further debate would harm science in China, emails show.
"An email from Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, on February 2 2020 said that “a likely explanation” was that Covid had rapidly evolved from a Sars-like virus inside human tissue in a low-security lab.
"The email, to Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Francis Collins of the US National Institutes of Health, went on to say that such evolution may have “accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans”.
It probably came from the lab, as I have been telling you for 18 months. This was also the opinion of many leading scientists right from the start, as I have been telling you for 18 months. it was probably engineered in the lab to be more transmissible, as I have been telling you for 18 months. But for various reasons there was a high level conspiracy to cover this up and crush an extremely plausible hypothesis: lab leak. As I have been telling you for 18 months.
So they found one senior scientist who thought it was 50/50 and another 60/40. Not exactly conclusive? Unknowable this one.
That's Jeremy Farrar, the leader of the Wellcome Trust, who thought it was 70/30 lab leak, and said so
Also this, from the earliest emails:
"In the emails, Sir Jeremy said that other scientists also believed the virus could not have evolved naturally. One such scientist was Professor Mike Farzan, of Scripps Research, the expert who discovered how the original Sars virus binds to human cells.
Scientists were particularly concerned by a part of Covid-19 called the furin cleavage site, a section of the spike protein which helps it enter cells and makes it so infectious to humans.
Summarising Professor Farzan’s concerns in an email, Sir Jeremy said: “He is bothered by the furin site and has a hard time (to) explain that as an event outside the lab, though there are possible ways in nature but highly unlikely."
And these guys
"The emails also show that Bob Garry, of the University of Texas, was unconvinced that Covid-19 emerged naturally.
“I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature,” he said.
"Professor Andrew Rambaut, from the University of Edinburgh, also said that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual”. "
And there are dozens more if you look at what is being revealed, right now, in the USA, it is all spilling out
But of course you know better, but also you know that all this is "unknowable" so let's not bother trying to know. But you still somehow know. Is that right?
Farrar changed his mind from 70/30 to 50/50 so over time thought it less likely. If you ask him today he might give a different percentage again. In five years time yet another percentage. I doubt even he will get to 100/0 so yes for the likes of you and I it is unknowable. Perhaps a few people in the CCP or the Wuhan lab do really know.
He didn't just change his mind, he did this in a matter of days:
On February 1 2020 he wrote that he thought lab leak was likely by 70/30 to 60/40. ie Probable. Not just possible, PROBABLE. And he wrote that many important virologists agreed with him, and also thought it highly likely the virus had been engineered
Then just 18 days later the same Jeremy Farrar co-signed this letter in The Lancet:
"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife as have so many other emerging pathogens This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus."
Wow. So in 18 days Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust went from thinking lab leak was the probable origin of the virus to thinking it was "overwhelmingly likely" the virus actually came from nature and that anyone who did suggest it came from the lab like, say, er, himself just two weeks before, was indulging in dangerous "conspiracy theories"
To make this total about-turn Jeremy Farrar must have seen some incredible evidence of natural origin, absolutely convincing copper-bottomed smoking-gun shit, right? And yet he has never shared it with anyone else. Which is a shame, as it would be nice to know where the virus came from. Ah well
And remember, the Lancet letter was organised by Peter Daszak, the co-head of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who led the gain of function research, and yet Daszak does not reveal this link in any place in the letter, and actually declares "no conflict of interest" - a statement the Lancet had to retract, painfully, a year later
It was a massive cover-up, now completely blown open. And yes, it really matters if science is this deeply corrupted
As I say a big part of the reason it is unknowable is that we can't trust analysis of it. Saying that scientists were not honest about it is hardly going to make me change my mind that we will never know.
You seem to have very little faith in your own inquisitive and analytic powers, rightly or not I couldn't say. I know all sorts of shit on the basis of an assessment of the evidence and the probabilities, you obviously not. The world must be mysterious and confusing to you. Sympathies.
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
Did Dougie and Ruthie miss you off their Christmas card list? I think I can understand why.
I think HYUFD cares more about independence not happening under the Tories watch, rather than actually trying to keep the union together.
Indeed. He’s said as much.
One wonders why FUDHY is a member of a political party at all. He seems to lack a purpose. A compass. It’s all just a game for him.
brilliant point by @EvanHD that the PM has with a straight face used the defence that Allegra Stratton realised she could not deliver from the Downing Street podium - that a party was a business meeting... https://twitter.com/jillongovt/status/1481319825834229762
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Asymmetric devolution didn't stop SLAB MPs becoming PM or getting positions in the Cabinet - even ones whose responsibilities had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament (i.e. John Reid as Health Secretary).
Things have changed quite a lot since the early 2000s.
Maybe for the Conservative Party. But I'd hope Labour being an actual, real unionist party would ignore any frothing at the mouth by the Faragistas and actually offer ministerial positions to any competent newly elected SLAB MPs.
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
"Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt ‘international harmony’
"Emails to Dr Anthony Fauci show ‘likely’ explanation identified at start of coronavirus pandemic, but there were worries about saying so"
"Leading British and US scientists thought it was likely that Covid accidentally leaked from a laboratory but were concerned that further debate would harm science in China, emails show.
"An email from Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, on February 2 2020 said that “a likely explanation” was that Covid had rapidly evolved from a Sars-like virus inside human tissue in a low-security lab.
"The email, to Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Francis Collins of the US National Institutes of Health, went on to say that such evolution may have “accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans”.
It probably came from the lab, as I have been telling you for 18 months. This was also the opinion of many leading scientists right from the start, as I have been telling you for 18 months. it was probably engineered in the lab to be more transmissible, as I have been telling you for 18 months. But for various reasons there was a high level conspiracy to cover this up and crush an extremely plausible hypothesis: lab leak. As I have been telling you for 18 months.
So they found one senior scientist who thought it was 50/50 and another 60/40. Not exactly conclusive? Unknowable this one.
That's Jeremy Farrar, the leader of the Wellcome Trust, who thought it was 70/30 lab leak, and said so
Also this, from the earliest emails:
"In the emails, Sir Jeremy said that other scientists also believed the virus could not have evolved naturally. One such scientist was Professor Mike Farzan, of Scripps Research, the expert who discovered how the original Sars virus binds to human cells.
Scientists were particularly concerned by a part of Covid-19 called the furin cleavage site, a section of the spike protein which helps it enter cells and makes it so infectious to humans.
Summarising Professor Farzan’s concerns in an email, Sir Jeremy said: “He is bothered by the furin site and has a hard time (to) explain that as an event outside the lab, though there are possible ways in nature but highly unlikely."
And these guys
"The emails also show that Bob Garry, of the University of Texas, was unconvinced that Covid-19 emerged naturally.
“I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature,” he said.
"Professor Andrew Rambaut, from the University of Edinburgh, also said that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual”. "
And there are dozens more if you look at what is being revealed, right now, in the USA, it is all spilling out
But of course you know better, but also you know that all this is "unknowable" so let's not bother trying to know. But you still somehow know. Is that right?
Farrar changed his mind from 70/30 to 50/50 so over time thought it less likely. If you ask him today he might give a different percentage again. In five years time yet another percentage. I doubt even he will get to 100/0 so yes for the likes of you and I it is unknowable. Perhaps a few people in the CCP or the Wuhan lab do really know.
He didn't just change his mind, he did this in a matter of days:
On February 1 2020 he wrote that he thought lab leak was likely by 70/30 to 60/40. ie Probable. Not just possible, PROBABLE. And he wrote that many important virologists agreed with him, and also thought it highly likely the virus had been engineered
Then just 18 days later the same Jeremy Farrar co-signed this letter in The Lancet:
"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife as have so many other emerging pathogens This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus."
Wow. So in 18 days Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust went from thinking lab leak was the probable origin of the virus to thinking it was "overwhelmingly likely" the virus actually came from nature and that anyone who did suggest it came from the lab like, say, er, himself just two weeks before, was indulging in dangerous "conspiracy theories"
To make this total about-turn Jeremy Farrar must have seen some incredible evidence of natural origin, absolutely convincing copper-bottomed smoking-gun shit, right? And yet he has never shared it with anyone else. Which is a shame, as it would be nice to know where the virus came from. Ah well
And remember, the Lancet letter was organised by Peter Daszak, the co-head of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who led the gain of function research, and yet Daszak does not reveal this link in any place in the letter, and actually declares "no conflict of interest" - a statement the Lancet had to retract, painfully, a year later
It was a massive cover-up, now completely blown open. And yes, it really matters if science is this deeply corrupted
I think it's only fair that posters on this site actually recognise the basic truth of what @Leon is saying and stop just having a Pavolvian reaction when they see his posts.
His point is a fundamentally correct one namely that, regardless of what you believe about the lab leak theory, if the Telegraph is right, you had one of the country's leading scientists go in less than 3 weeks from thinking it was probable it came from a lab to dismissing such views as conspiracy theory without any explanation - now or then - as to what prompted such a radical change of view. Nor the role of Daszak and his behaviour, which can only be described, generously, as "interesting."
These are the people that we are told to trust. I think any of us, if they were faced with someone at work (or even a Prime Minister) who repeated this pattern of behaviour, would be asking questions about their veracity and what went on.
Post-this crisis, there has to be an inquiry but not one conducted by the scientific community as there is a fair chance it will be a whitewash. And quite frankly, it will be the best for science.
Well said
You can see the crucial importance of this, in what is happening right now, today, on Twitter. Whether it came from the lab or not (it did, surely, but whatever) there is now incontrovertible evidence that scientists conspired with bureaucrats to crush the very idea that it came from the lab, even if they personally thought that explanation was likely. For a year the concept of "lab leak" was literally banned by Facebook, Youtube etc
So now every nutter on social media is saying Look, they lied about lab leak - which they did - how can we trust them on vaccines, or therapies, or anything else? The awful, stupid conspiracy has undermined science at the worst possible time.
And it is a fair question, hard to answer. How CAN we trust them on vaccines if they lied about Covid origins so profusely and shamelessly?
I do trust them, because vaccines seem to work. But anyone with doubts now has many more doubts
The thing which most disturbed me was the Great Barrington Declaration. Not the thing itself, but Google and Facebook's response to it. If you Googled Great Barrington Declaration, you just got a site saying why it was wrong. What used to be considered neutral players in information were doing their best to suppress things they found inconvenient. It's understandable when the CCP are doing it. We know they're an autocracy. But when Google and Facebook are doing it it's almost more sinister. It's considerably more puzzling.
Reading it again, the Lancet letter is a straw man.
[condemn the view] “ Covid does not have a natural origin”
“this coronavirus originated in nature”
Of course it did. It’s not a synthetic virus. But that doesn’t exclude modification of a naturally originating virus in a lab
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
Do we know when Gray is due to report?
Laura K guessing week to 10 days on WATO
Not long enough to be in power longer than Theresa or Gordon. Tory MPs need to feel the public mood and get those letters in now.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Ever heard of the Declaration of Perth?
Scottish Tories are always swinging their willies in the wind, but whenever push comes to shove they always go for the meekest, most cringeworthy, cowardly position.
BTW did you see my comment earlier on the apparent junking of the No Surrender to Indy in Auchenshuggle Cooncil leaflet strategy?
Yes I did. Thank you.
I agree with you that this is a sign of the rusty cogs slowly grinding into action among the SCon strategy bods. They’re in trouble and they know it. Their internal polling must be dire.
But it does beg the question: if they abandon Ruthie’s No Surrender strategy, what on earth is going to replace it? No dog poo on pavements? No to potholes? Haggis and kilts all round? The mind boggles.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
He must be praying even more trhan most dutiful sons for the indefinite postponement of London Bridge, after which the purse strings of the Duchy of Lancaster estate are going to be fastened against him
Bad day for poshos all round.
The Prince Andrew ruling is a victory for women
The effect is a ‘win’ for Virginia Roberts Giuffre – she can continue her quest for justice in open court
As I have repeatedly said I am not an American lawyer but the decision of the Judge is bewildering. He said:
"In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant."
Taking the temperature of Tories: - Cabinet circling wagons but Rishi Sunak still not said anything supportive - Lots of MPs saying they aren’t happy with the qualified apology - At least 1 MP tells me they’ve written to Sit Graham Brady today - https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1481321307262402560
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Remember that pretty much those arguments were put to them in 2011 and were smashed down and Murdo Fraser's career never recovered. It's not what is good for Scotland or the UK that counts here but what is good for the Scottish Unionists, and that is a huge psychological barrier. It would be a hell of a psychological shift from being a MP in the monolithic Labour-destroying Tory Party to the equivalent of the DUP.
OTOH it might eventually dawn on them that Labour isn't their main opposition anymore, and that there has now been a very, very long run of general elections in which they've failed dismally at getting elected as part of the Tory monolith at Westminster. Even the most bone-headed organisations occasionally manage to absorb the lessons of the past. Eventually.
Brief after work drinks in the workplace is not a party
Your integrity is becoming yet one more of Johnson's casualties, H, and it's painful to see.
Would it not be better to replace him so you can get behind the party again with a clean conscience?
No, it would be as damaging longer term to the party as removing Thatcher was in 1990 and set in motion a civil war which would in effect last for almost 2 decades. Most of which we would again spend in opposition
Hang on, the man that you are defending from "treachery" was the main architect of his predecessor's demise. He is the most disloyal individual probably ever to have held the office of PM in this country. He is not even loyal to his new wife (the buyers remorse comment). He doesn't deserve yours or anyone else's loyalty. I hope Theresa is thinking of ways she can get her justified revenge.
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
I have come to that conclusion as well
I very much doubt Boris will see the month out
Maybe especially not if Cummings has some more gourmet deliveries lined up before then.
"Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt ‘international harmony’
"Emails to Dr Anthony Fauci show ‘likely’ explanation identified at start of coronavirus pandemic, but there were worries about saying so"
"Leading British and US scientists thought it was likely that Covid accidentally leaked from a laboratory but were concerned that further debate would harm science in China, emails show.
"An email from Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, on February 2 2020 said that “a likely explanation” was that Covid had rapidly evolved from a Sars-like virus inside human tissue in a low-security lab.
"The email, to Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Francis Collins of the US National Institutes of Health, went on to say that such evolution may have “accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans”.
It probably came from the lab, as I have been telling you for 18 months. This was also the opinion of many leading scientists right from the start, as I have been telling you for 18 months. it was probably engineered in the lab to be more transmissible, as I have been telling you for 18 months. But for various reasons there was a high level conspiracy to cover this up and crush an extremely plausible hypothesis: lab leak. As I have been telling you for 18 months.
So they found one senior scientist who thought it was 50/50 and another 60/40. Not exactly conclusive? Unknowable this one.
That's Jeremy Farrar, the leader of the Wellcome Trust, who thought it was 70/30 lab leak, and said so
Also this, from the earliest emails:
"In the emails, Sir Jeremy said that other scientists also believed the virus could not have evolved naturally. One such scientist was Professor Mike Farzan, of Scripps Research, the expert who discovered how the original Sars virus binds to human cells.
Scientists were particularly concerned by a part of Covid-19 called the furin cleavage site, a section of the spike protein which helps it enter cells and makes it so infectious to humans.
Summarising Professor Farzan’s concerns in an email, Sir Jeremy said: “He is bothered by the furin site and has a hard time (to) explain that as an event outside the lab, though there are possible ways in nature but highly unlikely."
And these guys
"The emails also show that Bob Garry, of the University of Texas, was unconvinced that Covid-19 emerged naturally.
“I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature,” he said.
"Professor Andrew Rambaut, from the University of Edinburgh, also said that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual”. "
And there are dozens more if you look at what is being revealed, right now, in the USA, it is all spilling out
But of course you know better, but also you know that all this is "unknowable" so let's not bother trying to know. But you still somehow know. Is that right?
Farrar changed his mind from 70/30 to 50/50 so over time thought it less likely. If you ask him today he might give a different percentage again. In five years time yet another percentage. I doubt even he will get to 100/0 so yes for the likes of you and I it is unknowable. Perhaps a few people in the CCP or the Wuhan lab do really know.
He didn't just change his mind, he did this in a matter of days:
On February 1 2020 he wrote that he thought lab leak was likely by 70/30 to 60/40. ie Probable. Not just possible, PROBABLE. And he wrote that many important virologists agreed with him, and also thought it highly likely the virus had been engineered
Then just 18 days later the same Jeremy Farrar co-signed this letter in The Lancet:
"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife as have so many other emerging pathogens This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus."
Wow. So in 18 days Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust went from thinking lab leak was the probable origin of the virus to thinking it was "overwhelmingly likely" the virus actually came from nature and that anyone who did suggest it came from the lab like, say, er, himself just two weeks before, was indulging in dangerous "conspiracy theories"
To make this total about-turn Jeremy Farrar must have seen some incredible evidence of natural origin, absolutely convincing copper-bottomed smoking-gun shit, right? And yet he has never shared it with anyone else. Which is a shame, as it would be nice to know where the virus came from. Ah well
And remember, the Lancet letter was organised by Peter Daszak, the co-head of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who led the gain of function research, and yet Daszak does not reveal this link in any place in the letter, and actually declares "no conflict of interest" - a statement the Lancet had to retract, painfully, a year later
It was a massive cover-up, now completely blown open. And yes, it really matters if science is this deeply corrupted
I think it's only fair that posters on this site actually recognise the basic truth of what @Leon is saying and stop just having a Pavolvian reaction when they see his posts.
His point is a fundamentally correct one namely that, regardless of what you believe about the lab leak theory, if the Telegraph is right, you had one of the country's leading scientists go in less than 3 weeks from thinking it was probable it came from a lab to dismissing such views as conspiracy theory without any explanation - now or then - as to what prompted such a radical change of view. Nor the role of Daszak and his behaviour, which can only be described, generously, as "interesting."
These are the people that we are told to trust. I think any of us, if they were faced with someone at work (or even a Prime Minister) who repeated this pattern of behaviour, would be asking questions about their veracity and what went on.
Post-this crisis, there has to be an inquiry but not one conducted by the scientific community as there is a fair chance it will be a whitewash. And quite frankly, it will be the best for science.
Well said
You can see the crucial importance of this, in what is happening right now, today, on Twitter. Whether it came from the lab or not (it did, surely, but whatever) there is now incontrovertible evidence that scientists conspired with bureaucrats to crush the very idea that it came from the lab, even if they personally thought that explanation was likely. For a year the concept of "lab leak" was literally banned by Facebook, Youtube etc
So now every nutter on social media is saying Look, they lied about lab leak - which they did - how can we trust them on vaccines, or therapies, or anything else? The awful, stupid conspiracy has undermined science at the worst possible time.
And it is a fair question, hard to answer. How CAN we trust them on vaccines if they lied about Covid origins so profusely and shamelessly?
I do trust them, because vaccines seem to work. But anyone with doubts now has many more doubts
The thing which most disturbed me was the Great Barrington Declaration. Not the thing itself, but Google and Facebook's response to it. If you Googled Great Barrington Declaration, you just got a site saying why it was wrong. What used to be considered neutral players in information were doing their best to suppress things they found inconvenient. It's understandable when the CCP are doing it. We know they're an autocracy. But when Google and Facebook are doing it it's almost more sinister. It's considerably more puzzling.
Reading it again, the Lancet letter is a straw man.
[condemn the view] “ Covid does not have a natural origin”
“this coronavirus originated in nature”
Of course it did. It’s not a synthetic virus. But that doesn’t exclude modification of a naturally originating virus in a lab
Oh good god. You seriously think they weren't trying to crush the lab leak hypothesis? By spinning the word "nature". Everybody read "natural origin" = "Not Lab Leak"
Everyone
"Two months earlier, on Feb. 1, 2020, Comer and Jordan claim, Fauci and Collins took part in a conference call with at least 11 other scientists in which they were warned that COVID-19 may have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but “it is unclear if either Dr. Fauci or Dr. Collins ever passed these warnings along to other government officials or if they simply ignored them.”
"One participant in the call, Tulane University virologist Robert F. Garry, wrote in a follow-up email that “I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario” for the emergence of the virus.
"However, Garry later signed his name to a paper called “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” a draft of which was sent to Collins and Fauci before it was to be published in Nature Medicine. This was the paper to which Collins referred in his April 16 email to Fauci and it stated: “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus""
“After speaking with Drs. Fauci and Collins, the authors abandoned their belief COVID-19 was the result of a laboratory leak. It is also unclear if Drs. Fauci or Collins edited the paper prior to publication,” the Republicans’ letter says."
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
Did Dougie and Ruthie miss you off their Christmas card list? I think I can understand why.
I think HYUFD cares more about independence not happening under the Tories watch, rather than actually trying to keep the union together.
Indeed. He’s said as much.
One wonders why FUDHY is a member of a political party at all. He seems to lack a purpose. A compass. It’s all just a game for him.
More the point even if there is an indyref2 it is more likely to be won under a Labour PM offering devomax than any Tory PM
He must be praying even more trhan most dutiful sons for the indefinite postponement of London Bridge, after which the purse strings of the Duchy of Lancaster estate are going to be fastened against him
Bad day for poshos all round.
The Prince Andrew ruling is a victory for women
The effect is a ‘win’ for Virginia Roberts Giuffre – she can continue her quest for justice in open court
As I have repeatedly said I am not an American lawyer but the decision of the Judge is bewildering. He said:
"In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant."
This is the group that will do BJ in - they are not the deferential, Home Counties MPs of Tory-shire but used to taking the view that there is no point putting a problem off.
He must be praying even more trhan most dutiful sons for the indefinite postponement of London Bridge, after which the purse strings of the Duchy of Lancaster estate are going to be fastened against him
Bad day for poshos all round.
The Prince Andrew ruling is a victory for women
The effect is a ‘win’ for Virginia Roberts Giuffre – she can continue her quest for justice in open court
As I have repeatedly said I am not an American lawyer but the decision of the Judge is bewildering. He said:
"In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant."
Brief after work drinks in the workplace is not a party
Your integrity is becoming yet one more of Johnson's casualties, H, and it's painful to see.
Would it not be better to replace him so you can get behind the party again with a clean conscience?
No, it would be as damaging longer term to the party as removing Thatcher was in 1990 and set in motion a civil war which would in effect last for almost 2 decades. Most of which we would again spend in opposition
Would that be so bad? I could certainly live with 2 decades of the Conservatives in opposition. Point is, you'd have a clean conscience. You can't put a price on that.
Brief after work drinks in the workplace is not a party
Your integrity is becoming yet one more of Johnson's casualties, H, and it's painful to see.
Would it not be better to replace him so you can get behind the party again with a clean conscience?
No, it would be as damaging longer term to the party as removing Thatcher was in 1990 and set in motion a civil war which would in effect last for almost 2 decades. Most of which we would again spend in opposition
Hang on, the man that you are defending from "treachery" was the main architect of his predecessor's demise. He is the most disloyal individual probably ever to have held the office of PM in this country. He is not even loyal to his new wife (the buyers remorse comment). He doesn't deserve yours or anyone else's loyalty. I hope Theresa is thinking of ways she can get her justified revenge.
Boris never personally challenged May, he only stood after she had resigned after the Tories were polling below 25% and had lost over 1,000 councillors and got just 9% in the European elections of 2019.
Boris' differences with Theresa were also on policy ie over getting Brexit done and the nature of her deal, not personal vendetta like the attempted Cummings coup is. Same with Heseltine, his disagreements with Thatcher were over the poll tax and Europe, not personal as such.
The only possible policy disagreement could be if Cummings and Sunak and Gove want tighter restrictions than Boris is imposing, which really would be a recipe for Tory civil war
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
Time will show that the Colston verdict was deeply pernicious and irresponsible
No it was excellent.
We have a right to decide whom we venerate in our own towns. A slave trader isn't one of them.
The only people I know who are upset over this are middle-aged white men. And Alison Pearson, obvs.
Polls show that you are absolutely wrong. Most people are open to controversial statues being taken down by democratic consent, they do NOT like it done in an hour by a mob
"We have a right to decide whom we venerate in our own towns" is a very silly comment because the thing about mobs is they are not exactly a perfect method of determining who the town wants to venerate or not. Perhaps no way is perfect, but being frustrated by slow bureaucracy in removing something when there is support for removing it does not mean you should just start smashing something up mob justice style. Mobs are dumb.
I disagreed with the jury verdict but support their right to make that verdict, but 'having a right' about veneration has little to do with having a simultaneous right to smashing things down - not all participants will find so sympathetic a jury. Now people are more alive to these issues local politicians can and will push for action if there is support, and in Bristol as well as other places there is probably support and votes in such action.
Taking the temperature of Tories: - Cabinet circling wagons but Rishi Sunak still not said anything supportive - Lots of MPs saying they aren’t happy with the qualified apology - At least 1 MP tells me they’ve written to Sit Graham Brady today - https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1481321307262402560
Rishi running the risk of looking like a back-stabber. I suspect @HYUFD's view of his "treachery" (if true) will be shared by other members
(personally, I always found Rishi a bit too smarmy)
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
That reminds me. You still have not answered my question: should the UK have given India independence? The Indians wanted it, but the UK by its laws had no need to grant it.
Churchill's Tory government never did, only Attlee's Labour government did
Come on, answer my question, were Labour right to give India independence, please? I'm trying to work out youir limits, seeing as you support independence for Wales and Antrim (the former in the UK, the latter still sort of).
No I don't, I voted for more Tory candidates than Plaid even in that town council election and I want to keep NI in the UK, just Antrim may prefer UDI to joining Ireland.
Churchill did oppose Indian independence at the time, so had I been a Tory MP from say 1935 to 1945 then I probably would have opposed Indian independence at the time. However India did go independent and we have to accept it is now an independent nation, albeit still within the Commonwealth.
However India is a different case from Scotland as it was a colony without MPs, Scotland is part of the UK with MPs and its own parliament.
We had just fought a war ostensibly against tyranny. We spilt much blood to make sure Europe, and large parts of the rest of the world, were free and could enjoy democracy. Why is it so hard for you to say that granting those same freedoms to India was a good thing?
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Ever heard of the Declaration of Perth?
Scottish Tories are always swinging their willies in the wind, but whenever push comes to shove they always go for the meekest, most cringeworthy, cowardly position.
BTW did you see my comment earlier on the apparent junking of the No Surrender to Indy in Auchenshuggle Cooncil leaflet strategy?
Yes I did. Thank you.
I agree with you that this is a sign of the rusty cogs slowly grinding into action among the SCon strategy bods. They’re in trouble and they know it. Their internal polling must be dire.
But it does beg the question: if they abandon Ruthie’s No Surrender strategy, what on earth is going to replace it? No dog poo on pavements? No to potholes? Haggis and kilts all round? The mind boggles.
"That chap in No 10 is just who we want ruling Scotland never mind how few there are of us, and never mind I don't want to be seen on the same side of the street as him."
The other thing that boggles the mind is the idea of calling themselves the Unionist Party. Brings back memories of the good old days of the nativist Protestant Supremacy and that chap preaching at the foot of the Mound in Edinburgh.
I guess in the end most of the cabinet will be forced into backing Johnson on social media, but it is striking how long it is taking some who are not normally reticent about tweeting to get round to it. https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1481322893904683024
He must be praying even more trhan most dutiful sons for the indefinite postponement of London Bridge, after which the purse strings of the Duchy of Lancaster estate are going to be fastened against him
Bad day for poshos all round.
The Prince Andrew ruling is a victory for women
The effect is a ‘win’ for Virginia Roberts Giuffre – she can continue her quest for justice in open court
As I have repeatedly said I am not an American lawyer but the decision of the Judge is bewildering. He said:
"In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant."
The question of whether the agreement is binding on the claimant is not a matter of the parties' subjective intentions or wishes. It is a matter of the legal interpretation of a legal document. In the UK evidence as to intention is simply not admissible. It is possible in some circumstances to have evidence about the background circumstances of the agreement but in general this is only permissible if there is an inherent ambiguity in it.
I would be very surprised if American law was different to this. The Judge should either have determined that the agreement was irrelevant on the basis that Andrew was not a party to it or determined that the natural construction is that he was a potential defendant and therefore had the benefit of it. He has dodged the issue.
The BBC are reporting that a right of appeal on this point requires the leave of the Judge and that he is unlikely to grant that. I think we shall see. Most courts would want a determination on such a preliminary issue before the parties went to the cost and inconvenience of proof.
Of course it's a dodge. Do Scottish courts never indulge in such things?
Possible background: Andrew's lawyers said something about the intention of the parties (over and above what can be deduced from the Agreement itself): Judge says Aha, you want parol evidence, a full trial is the place for that. Not the most farfetched possibility in the world that judge is mildly prejudiced against A in the first place. I am.Judge
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
Taking the temperature of Tories: - Cabinet circling wagons but Rishi Sunak still not said anything supportive - Lots of MPs saying they aren’t happy with the qualified apology - At least 1 MP tells me they’ve written to Sit Graham Brady today - https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1481321307262402560
Rishi running the risk of looking like a back-stabber. I suspect @HYUFD's view of his "treachery" (if true) will be shared by other members
(personally, I always found Rishi a bit too smarmy)
Backstabber maybe? Or perhaps he has principles and doesn't want to defend in the indefensible?
Even Michael Green MP doesn't think Boris's behaviour can be defended? It's that bad!
Taking the temperature of Tories: - Cabinet circling wagons but Rishi Sunak still not said anything supportive - Lots of MPs saying they aren’t happy with the qualified apology - At least 1 MP tells me they’ve written to Sit Graham Brady today - https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1481321307262402560
Rishi running the risk of looking like a back-stabber. I suspect @HYUFD's view of his "treachery" (if true) will be shared by other members
(personally, I always found Rishi a bit too smarmy)
Boris hasn't bought himself much time with this 'wait for Sue Gray's report' line, has he? As always with him, he's bought a short-term respite at the cost of more trouble thereafter. This is because the report will now act as a specific trigger for action.
I have come to that conclusion as well
I very much doubt Boris will see the month out
Shall we have a bet on that Big G.
I do not want to be a spoilsport but I am not a betting person
However, I do generally have a good instinct and I think it is very possible
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Asymmetric devolution didn't stop SLAB MPs becoming PM or getting positions in the Cabinet - even ones whose responsibilities had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament (i.e. John Reid as Health Secretary).
Things have changed quite a lot since the early 2000s.
Maybe for the Conservative Party. But I'd hope Labour being an actual, real unionist party would ignore any frothing at the mouth by the Faragistas and actually offer ministerial positions to any competent newly elected SLAB MPs.
That wouldn't be a problem for them, I'm sure. There's always the Scotland Office, the Foreign Office and the MoD.
But, in all seriousness, having a PM representing a Scottish constituency in this day and age would pose not just constitutional questions but also significant presentational problems. They'd spend most of their time dealing with business that was irrelevant to their own constituents who, for most purposes, were represented by a completely separate Government that said leader had nothing at all to do with. It's more than a little bit silly.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
That reminds me. You still have not answered my question: should the UK have given India independence? The Indians wanted it, but the UK by its laws had no need to grant it.
Churchill's Tory government never did, only Attlee's Labour government did
Come on, answer my question, were Labour right to give India independence, please? I'm trying to work out youir limits, seeing as you support independence for Wales and Antrim (the former in the UK, the latter still sort of).
No I don't, I voted for more Tory candidates than Plaid even in that town council election and I want to keep NI in the UK, just Antrim may prefer UDI to joining Ireland.
Churchill did oppose Indian independence at the time, so had I been a Tory MP from say 1935 to 1945 then I probably would have opposed Indian independence at the time. However India did go independent and we have to accept it is now an independent nation, albeit still within the Commonwealth.
However India is a different case from Scotland as it was a colony without MPs, Scotland is part of the UK with MPs and its own parliament.
We had just fought a war ostensibly against tyranny. We spilt much blood to make sure Europe, and large parts of the rest of the world, were free and could enjoy democracy. Why is it so hard for you to say that granting those same freedoms to India was a good thing?
We went to war with Hitler only when he invaded Poland, not when he merged Germany with Austria and much of Czechoslovakia
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Suspect that a jury will show this guy that the previous jury didn't create a precedent, and he is going to spend time in jail.
As one Tweet below says, he doesn't look like a Milo or a Sage so he is probably in trouble.
Have we discussed this apology. I'm glad they resigned, good riddance imo.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
Took her mask off at a wake
Burn her
As I understand it, she was talking to an elderly person who couldn't hear her properly - indeed quite likely to be a partial lipreader. (This is also probably at the root of that incident with Jack Straw and the lady with the veil years ago).
Of course there is a valid excuse. And I'm sure Scottish plod would have listened to each and everyone's valid excuse also if they were pulled up on it.
Not an excuse; an entire justification, if you recall, when communication with a deaf person is/was involved.
Yeah. An excuse as I said. But an SNP excuse so all good.
A legal exception. But because it's SNP involved it can't be in your view. The reason I'm a bit short on this is that I have a deaf person in my family, and an elderly partly deaf relative - so I do know how and why these things happen.
Taking the temperature of Tories: - Cabinet circling wagons but Rishi Sunak still not said anything supportive - Lots of MPs saying they aren’t happy with the qualified apology - At least 1 MP tells me they’ve written to Sit Graham Brady today - https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1481321307262402560
Rishi running the risk of looking like a back-stabber. I suspect @HYUFD's view of his "treachery" (if true) will be shared by other members
(personally, I always found Rishi a bit too smarmy)
Backstabber maybe? Or perhaps he has principles and doesn't want to defend in the indefensible?
Even Michael Green MP doesn't think Boris's behaviour can be defended? It's that bad!
Then he should say so. Whatever you think of Snapps, he was at least willing to come out in the open to show his unease. Rishi won't even do that.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Asymmetric devolution didn't stop SLAB MPs becoming PM or getting positions in the Cabinet - even ones whose responsibilities had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament (i.e. John Reid as Health Secretary).
Things have changed quite a lot since the early 2000s.
Maybe for the Conservative Party. But I'd hope Labour being an actual, real unionist party would ignore any frothing at the mouth by the Faragistas and actually offer ministerial positions to any competent newly elected SLAB MPs.
But, in all seriousness, having a PM representing a Scottish constituency in this day and age would pose not just constitutional questions but also significant presentational problems. They'd spend most of their time dealing with business that was irrelevant to their own constituents who, for most purposes, were represented by a completely separate Government that said leader had nothing at all to do with. It's more than a little bit silly.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Suspect that a jury will show this guy that the previous jury didn't create a precedent, and he is going to spend time in jail.
Well we have seen this before. Pissy man went to jail for handing himself in and apologising for being a total dickhead of having a pee next to a memorial, man who set like to Union Flag at the Cenotaph, not jailed.
I presume the Union Flag was his own property, so he is entitled to burn it.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
That is a really good and interesting article. Thanks for that. The Guardian long articles really are great reading.
I’ve been reading The Grauniad for years, and yes there is a lot of hand-wringing middle class bollocks in there, no doubt. But, for me, on balance, it’s the best of the papers. They do a lot of very good stuff that far outweighs the shite for me. But I’m of the left so I would say that.
Comments
There are no Johnson loyalists who will fight a civil war in the party on his behalf if he is pushed out, and I don't see what significant change of policy would follow from a change of PM at this stage. No new PM is going to make a drastic change of policy on Brexit - this is very different from 1990 when it was felt that Thatcher was brought down by the pro-Europeans.
Scottish Tories are always swinging their willies in the wind, but whenever push comes to shove they always go for the meekest, most cringeworthy, cowardly position.
..wanted to express "how sorry I am for my breach of rules that I ask all of us to follow".
they said: "I want to be clear that regardless of the circumstances, I was in the wrong. There are no excuses.
"These rules do apply to me, just as they do to everyone else, and the rules really matter.
"I am kicking myself very hard - possibly harder than my worst critic ever could - but more importantly I'll be making sure I don't drop my guard again."
However, my guess is that they will remove him. If he was competent I'd think differently but he isn't. He's inept as PM so they will oust him this year.
Yet we don't apply this differentiation when it comes to Gary Glitter. You won't now hear his songs on British radios. Yet you will still hear Michael Jackson. And Wagner
We are in a total confused mess on this issue. My stance is nothing should be criminally damaged, and any artwork must in itself be offensive (outwith the moral profile of the artist) for it to be banned
Gary Glitter wrote a couple of quite excellent pop anthems
We have a right to decide whom we venerate in our own towns. A slave trader isn't one of them.
The only people I know who are upset over this are middle-aged white men. And Alison Pearson, obvs.
Prince Andrew wouldn't be that stupid surely?
The judge has now rejected that argument, forcing Andrew to either fight the case or seek a settlement with his accuser. Some observers have also speculated that he will stop engaging with the case now that a judge has signalled that it will go ahead, leaving him open to a default judgment.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-loses-bid-to-dismiss-virginia-giuffre-sex-assault-case-9xfs2vdhl
Burn her
As you say though, the people who decide what can be shown are totally inconsistent when it comes to what they believe should result in being cancelled or not. The list is as long as your arm, where a blind eye is turned to their crimes and others straight on the naughty list.
Stand fast, you gallant, stalwart Tories.
And keep Boris as your brave standard-bearer into the next general election (and maybe even beyond it, if loonies like you are representative)!
Just 13% in this poll approved of the mob
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/philosophy/survey-results/daily/2020/06/08/1ab21/1
Churchill did oppose Indian independence at the time, so had I been a Tory MP from say 1935 to 1945 then I probably would have opposed Indian independence at the time. However India did go independent and we have to accept it is now an independent nation, albeit still within the Commonwealth.
However India is a different case from Scotland as it was a colony without MPs, Scotland is part of the UK with MPs and its own parliament.
Perhaps the Scottish Tories will surprise you this time? Though most likely they'll do nothing and you'll be proven right. Anyway, I'm just showing a casual interest and floating some ideas. I don't have a dog in this particular fight.
If she is desperate for a day in court than a default judgment may be the best Prince Andrew can hope for.
On balance, ten of twelve jurors decided the latter was the lesser of two wrongs. If we continue to propose punishments that are disproportionate to the crime, we shouldn't be surprised if juries opt to nullify.
streetcar, in no particular order:1) what were the rules then in any case
2) at least he got us through Brexit
3) didn't Nicola Sturgeon break the rules also (this from her husband so they had discussed)
4) what about the other people at the party - they also knew it was against the rules if it was and all attended nevertheless.
"In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant."
The question of whether the agreement is binding on the claimant is not a matter of the parties' subjective intentions or wishes. It is a matter of the legal interpretation of a legal document. In the UK evidence as to intention is simply not admissible. It is possible in some circumstances to have evidence about the background circumstances of the agreement but in general this is only permissible if there is an inherent ambiguity in it.
I would be very surprised if American law was different to this. The Judge should either have determined that the agreement was irrelevant on the basis that Andrew was not a party to it or determined that the natural construction is that he was a potential defendant and therefore had the benefit of it. He has dodged the issue.
The BBC are reporting that a right of appeal on this point requires the leave of the Judge and that he is unlikely to grant that. I think we shall see. Most courts would want a determination on such a preliminary issue before the parties went to the cost and inconvenience of proof.
He’s said as much.
One wonders why FUDHY is a member of a political party at all. He seems to lack a purpose. A compass. It’s all just a game for him.
https://twitter.com/jillongovt/status/1481319825834229762
I very much doubt Boris will see the month out
[condemn the view] “ Covid does not have a natural origin”
“this coronavirus originated in nature”
Of course it did. It’s not a synthetic virus. But that doesn’t exclude modification of a naturally originating virus in a lab
I agree with you that this is a sign of the rusty cogs slowly grinding into action among the SCon strategy bods. They’re in trouble and they know it. Their internal polling must be dire.
But it does beg the question: if they abandon Ruthie’s No Surrender strategy, what on earth is going to replace it? No dog poo on pavements? No to potholes? Haggis and kilts all round? The mind boggles.
Bye.
- Cabinet circling wagons but Rishi Sunak still not said anything supportive
- Lots of MPs saying they aren’t happy with the qualified apology
- At least 1 MP tells me they’ve written to Sit Graham Brady today
- https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1481321307262402560
Everyone
"Two months earlier, on Feb. 1, 2020, Comer and Jordan claim, Fauci and Collins took part in a conference call with at least 11 other scientists in which they were warned that COVID-19 may have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but “it is unclear if either Dr. Fauci or Dr. Collins ever passed these warnings along to other government officials or if they simply ignored them.”
"One participant in the call, Tulane University virologist Robert F. Garry, wrote in a follow-up email that “I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario” for the emergence of the virus.
"However, Garry later signed his name to a paper called “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” a draft of which was sent to Collins and Fauci before it was to be published in Nature Medicine. This was the paper to which Collins referred in his April 16 email to Fauci and it stated: “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus""
“After speaking with Drs. Fauci and Collins, the authors abandoned their belief COVID-19 was the result of a laboratory leak. It is also unclear if Drs. Fauci or Collins edited the paper prior to publication,” the Republicans’ letter says."
https://nypost.com/2022/01/11/fauci-called-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-shiny-object-in-april-2020-email/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59871514
Only sort of though.
Boris' differences with Theresa were also on policy ie over getting Brexit done and the nature of her deal, not personal vendetta like the attempted Cummings coup is. Same with Heseltine, his disagreements with Thatcher were over the poll tax and Europe, not personal as such.
The only possible policy disagreement could be if Cummings and Sunak and Gove want tighter restrictions than Boris is imposing, which really would be a recipe for Tory civil war
I disagreed with the jury verdict but support their right to make that verdict, but 'having a right' about veneration has little to do with having a simultaneous right to smashing things down - not all participants will find so sympathetic a jury. Now people are more alive to these issues local politicians can and will push for action if there is support, and in Bristol as well as other places there is probably support and votes in such action.
(personally, I always found Rishi a bit too smarmy)
The other thing that boggles the mind is the idea of calling themselves the Unionist Party. Brings back memories of the good old days of the nativist Protestant Supremacy and that chap preaching at the foot of the Mound in Edinburgh.
https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1481322893904683024
Possible background: Andrew's lawyers said something about the intention of the parties (over and above what can be deduced from the Agreement itself): Judge says Aha, you want parol evidence, a full trial is the place for that. Not the most farfetched possibility in the world that judge is mildly prejudiced against A in the first place. I am.Judge
Even Michael Green MP doesn't think Boris's behaviour can be defended? It's that bad!
However, I do generally have a good instinct and I think it is very possible
But, in all seriousness, having a PM representing a Scottish constituency in this day and age would pose not just constitutional questions but also significant presentational problems. They'd spend most of their time dealing with business that was irrelevant to their own constituents who, for most purposes, were represented by a completely separate Government that said leader had nothing at all to do with. It's more than a little bit silly.
"Politicians are subject to elections. Civil servants are subject to HR. HR does not apply to ministers because they have to retain confidence of the British people"
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1481323556906717186
Also noticed that Sky News decided to give him a kicking before and after PMQs.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I like the hair.