As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
They can call a referendum, Westminster can and will ignore it. Exactly as Madrid ignored the unofficial Catalan referendum in 2017 and the international community did sod all about it
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
46% of English voters oppose Scottish independence, 34% say it is up to Scots, 13% back Scottish independence.
54% of English Tory voters and 62% of English LDs outright oppose Scottish independence even if only 42% of English Labour voters outright oppose it
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
The Oxford English Dictionary says
a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
It is that not the very literal definition of what Trump was attempting?
Since those storming the Capitol had absolutely no intention of (to say nothing of ability to) forcing a change in the Government by their actions, I'd take a wild stab at 'No'. The highly visual storming 'moment' is now being artificially and cynically chopped up and blended with Trumps other dodgy dealings to remain in power. History is littered with idiotic forlorn protests/attacks. When such events are labelled as coups, it's usually not for a good reason. The Reichstag fire springs to mind.
(1/4) I saw the chat last night on the current covid state, so I, inevitably, have decided to put in my semi-informed two penn’orth. Which is: we’re in the third Omicron wave. Around one in thirty of us have covid right now (up from a low of one in seventy). For some, it’s a summer cold. For others, it’s a nasty flu. For a few, it’s severe enough for hospitalisation, even with the immunity levels we’ve got.
This is the end state as it stands. You will catch covid an average of 1-4 times per year. All of us will. Some will be lucky and miss a year or two; others will be unlucky and catch it at every wave. And reinfections aren't necessarily less nasty than the previous infection.
I’ve had real ‘flu maybe three or four times in my life (rather than a bad cold). That’s a bit under once per decade, and I think that’s pretty representative. You probably get just under one real case of flu per decade. You will catch covid 10-40 times over the next decade, unless something changes. So will each of your loved ones.
There is also the question of what proportion of hospitalisations are FOR rather than WITH covid. We don’t need to speculate, the figures are published. It’s about 36% right now (up from 30% at the low). But it’s still WAY below the 70-80% in the pre-Omicron and pre-vaccine days. Don’t get me wrong, those with incidental covid are not irrelevant. You still have to isolate them, it causes complexities in treatment, and worsens prognoses (there are no cases where “Oh, and you’ve got covid as well,” is a positive phrase to hear if you’re hospitalised and vulnerable due to something else). But it’s still qualitatively different from “You’ve caught covid so bad you’ve been rushed to hospital due to covid itself.”
And, yes, we still have a baseline of about 50 people per day dying FROM covid, who would have lived otherwise.
We will have between 1 million and 5 million people in the UK with covid; it’ll vary as the waves come and go. These are hitting fairly regularly – we had the original Omicron wave in December/January, the BA.2 wave in March/April, and now the BA.4/5 wave in June/July.
(Which implies that February and May were good months, and maybe August will be as well).
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
(2/4) We will have 500-2000 hospital admissions per day with covid, of which 150-800 will be directly due to covid. We will have 3,000 to 20,000 people in hospital with covid at any time, of whom 1,000 to 8,000 will be due to covid (for context, we have capacity for around 100,000 in general and acute care and typically run between 70% and 95% loaded; this is an extra loading varying between 1% and 8%). This will have knock-on effects to all other areas of hospital care, from ambulance delays to delays in operations for other things. This is unavoidable, without a major increase to capacity. And 20-100 people will die due to covid (not just with covid) every day.
And on the Long Covid front – it’s certainly a reality, for many people, although the difficulty in reliably diagnosing what is due to covid and what is not is an issue. I personally suspect that while it very much exists and detracts from the lives of many people (in some cases hugely so), it’s not as prevalent as some assessments. However, it is also reduced (although not eliminated) by vaccines. It took 12 million infections to get to 1 million reported cases with ongoing symptoms; following vaccines, it took 40 million infections to get another 1 million such cases.
This is living with covid. As with the virus that caused Spanish Influenza, it will not ever go away again. Not fully.
Is that depressing? Or is it a relief that we’re able to get on with life regardless? Doesn’t matter. Reality doesn’t care if it’s depressing or a relief; it’s what’s looking to happen regardless of our feelings.
It is not, however, a justification for systematic NPIs. Even if we’re starting to think: “hang on, isn’t this getting a bit out of hand again?”
From everything I’ve read, NPIs (unless they are permanent) don’t do much to help when a disease is endemic. The infections you put off from one mini-wave come to bite you in the next one – and population immunity levels are lower (as fewer were infected “last time”), so it is, if anything, worse.
Former Armed Forces minister Lord Andrew Robathan shared his outrage at the decreasing size of the UK military in the wake of the raging war in Ukraine.
GB News presenter Nigel Farage probed Lord Robathan on why the Conservatives have continued to cut the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget since 2010.
Lord Robathan acknowledged that "changes need to happen" but condemned the Government for "whittling the army, navy and airforce" down to dangerous levels, stating how the country is now in a "ridiculous situation".
(3/4) And there is no way we’re imposing restrictions or even masking on a permanent basis, let’s face it. The only NPIs that could be permanent without such disruption are things like HEPA filters/far UV treatment. These are very promising, and show decreases of 50% or so in infection rates, which is brilliant. I mean, if we’d had those, then merely banning large gatherings might have got us pretty close to the same R-reduction rate as full lockdown did. Frankly, I thought lockdown was really shit, and I’d swap them in a heartbeat.
“But how do we pay for them?” As with many other interventions, the reduction in lost productivity and disruption by the considerable reduction in infections would exceed the cost of installation, let alone maintenance, running, and replacement. And they’d put us in a far better place to start from the next time we have a respiratory pandemic (because we know this isn’t a unique event. We were lucky before in the amount of time between major pandemics. Let’s not count on luck going forwards).
No, temporary NPIs, including all restrictions and lockdowns, are merely to buy time for a better solution. That’s what they did last time, and that’s their use-case. It’s not a use-case for endemic situations.
However, if you are more vulnerable than most, you can reduce your risk by a big chunk simply by staying extra-cautious during the times of greater risk – at the crests of the waves. When prevalence in England is above 3-4%, it could well be worth using an FFP3 mask and avoid crowded inside places (although some people seem to want to judge anyone who does just that – without walking a mile in their shoes). And if you aren’t vulnerable but are going to visit someone who is, then at the peak (like now and for a couple more weeks), it’s worth using a test if you’ve got some stashed away.
Yes, if everyone did this, we’d have that issue above on reducing population immunity, but on the individual level, it makes sense to let someone else take the load of the population-immunity-through-infection if you’re more vulnerable than most. Yes, it’s a pain to reduce activities regularly – but these are always transient periods, and if you reduce your personal incidence by a factor of two or three, you’ll have to fight it off far less often. Especially if you take a regular booster shot.
Improved immunity IS useful, though. Even the original type vaccines can reboost waning immunity. And the bivalent boosters recently developed increase antibody titres against Omicron to similar to the original formulation’s level against Delta. That’s a very significant change, and could reduce the endemic level (the tidal level of infection) considerably. Instead of 10-40 infections per decade, maybe 3-10? Less? Reducing the impact on the health system by a similar level?
(4/4) Would they actually reduce infections like that? What about: "I thought the vaccines don’t stop you getting Omicron. Or covid at all."
Have you seen the levels of infection and speed of rise? We’ve got an Rt of maybe 1.4. With a virus five to ten times as infectious as original strain covid (which was about 2.4 to 3.0). That means it “should” be somewhere in the 12-30 range. With exponential growth, multiplying by 12 every cycle rather than 1.4 means the ONS prevalence levels should go up within a couple of weeks until it’s a vertical line and the spreadsheet simply says “everyone.”
So, no, it doesn’t stop it dead. It’s not a suit of armour. But it does bounce off quite a bit. If it takes five attempts to get through, down from twenty, it’s reduced your infection level by a lot. People use the seatbelt analogy, and it’s a good one. Seat belts and airbags don’t stop you from dying in a car crash. But they reduce the rate a long way.
“But what about the cost and disruption of rolling them out?”
What disruption? It wouldn’t be the desperate “get jabs in arms NOW so we can release NPIs” of 2021. It’d be more like the winter flu jab regime.
And cost-wise: well you blow past the price of a jab within five minutes of presenting to hospital. And if it saves one day off work per year, you’ve more than made up the difference, haven’t you? Zero covid? Yeah, people still talk about that, but it’s not happening. It would need simultaneous eradication of covid worldwide, and we can’t do that with vaccines, so we’d need a worldwide lockdown at China levels with perfect adherence. No, that’s never happening. It’s here, we’re living with it; we merely have to select how we live with it.
Caution for the most vulnerable, regular boosters, reformulating for the latest strain (and here, the fact that covid seems to be stuck on the Omicron branch of the evolutionary tree is very helpful), HEPA filters, and possibly an increase in hospital capacity make the difference.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
You would say that, wouldn't you? I think you might be wrong without realising it. It is clear that anti monarchism is a factor in TUD's and SD's thinking if not in yours. If I were Sturgeon my golden rule would be No indyref2 until after London Bridge, to get HMQ's personal vote out of the way .
My point was about the historical background to the psychological quirks of the likes of HYUFD. He doesn't like Scotland, has he ever been there? Why does he care?
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
The Oxford English Dictionary says
a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
It is that not the very literal definition of what Trump was attempting?
Since those storming the Capitol had absolutely no intention of (to say nothing of ability to) forcing a change in the Government by their actions, I'd take a wild stab at 'No'. The highly visual storming 'moment' is now being artificially and cynically chopped up and blended with Trumps other dodgy dealings to remain in power. History is littered with idiotic forlorn protests/attacks. When such events are labelled as coups, it's usually not for a good reason. The Reichstag fire springs to mind.
Sure. And they were just looking for Pence to shake his hand, no doubt ?
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
The Oxford English Dictionary says
a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
It is that not the very literal definition of what Trump was attempting?
Since those storming the Capitol had absolutely no intention of (to say nothing of ability to) forcing a change in the Government by their actions, I'd take a wild stab at 'No'. The highly visual storming 'moment' is now being artificially and cynically chopped up and blended with Trumps other dodgy dealings to remain in power. History is littered with idiotic forlorn protests/attacks. When such events are labelled as coups, it's usually not for a good reason. The Reichstag fire springs to mind.
" had absolutely no intention of ... forcing a change in the Government by their actions"
What do you think they were there for? Cheese and wine?
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
The Oxford English Dictionary says
a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
It is that not the very literal definition of what Trump was attempting?
Since those storming the Capitol had absolutely no intention of (to say nothing of ability to) forcing a change in the Government by their actions, I'd take a wild stab at 'No'. The highly visual storming 'moment' is now being artificially and cynically chopped up and blended with Trumps other dodgy dealings to remain in power. History is littered with idiotic forlorn protests/attacks. When such events are labelled as coups, it's usually not for a good reason. The Reichstag fire springs to mind.
Even ignoring your insane conspiracy nonsense at the end there you miss the or in the description of coup.
It doesn't need to be a violent to be a coip attempt.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
The Oxford English Dictionary says
a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
It is that not the very literal definition of what Trump was attempting?
Since those storming the Capitol had absolutely no intention of (to say nothing of ability to) forcing a change in the Government by their actions, I'd take a wild stab at 'No'. The highly visual storming 'moment' is now being artificially and cynically chopped up and blended with Trumps other dodgy dealings to remain in power. History is littered with idiotic forlorn protests/attacks. When such events are labelled as coups, it's usually not for a good reason. The Reichstag fire springs to mind.
Reichstag fire is excellent. What you are saying is the coup consisted not in the actions of Trumpians on January 6 but in the Democrat reaction to them?
On the referendum the SC set out the position extremely clearly in a unanimous decision quite recently when the SG tried to incorporate a UN Convention on the rights of the Child which impinged on the rights reserved to the UK Parliament. This is the SC press release on the matter: https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2021-0079.html
It seemed to me that Lord Reed went well beyond what was necessary for the particular case to spell out the process in detail and the various safeguards built into the Scotland Act. Specifically in this case the first step is getting the Law Officers in Scotland to confirm that the bill is compatible; secondly the chair of the Parliament doing likewise (although failure to get this does not stop the bill outright) and thirdly the right to refer the Bill when passed to the SC for a ruling.
It remains to be seen if Sturgeon is able to short circuit this. It is entirely possible that the SC will decline to consider the bill until the other stages have been complied with. Even if they do they will follow the reasoning set out in the earlier case which makes it clear that Holyrood cannot pass legislation which impinges in any respect on reserved matters. This path is a dead end and Sturgeon must know it.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
The Oxford English Dictionary says
a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
It is that not the very literal definition of what Trump was attempting?
Since those storming the Capitol had absolutely no intention of (to say nothing of ability to) forcing a change in the Government by their actions, I'd take a wild stab at 'No'. The highly visual storming 'moment' is now being artificially and cynically chopped up and blended with Trumps other dodgy dealings to remain in power. History is littered with idiotic forlorn protests/attacks. When such events are labelled as coups, it's usually not for a good reason. The Reichstag fire springs to mind.
Reichstag fire is excellent. What you are saying is the coup consisted not in the actions of Trumpians on January 6 but in the Democrat reaction to them?
Impressive.
There's a thought line on far right message groups that simultaneously Jan 6th was a false flag antifa operation and also the people who stormed the Capital are MAGA heroes and here is a donation link for their legal defence.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
Former Armed Forces minister Lord Andrew Robathan shared his outrage at the decreasing size of the UK military in the wake of the raging war in Ukraine.
GB News presenter Nigel Farage probed Lord Robathan on why the Conservatives have continued to cut the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget since 2010.
Lord Robathan acknowledged that "changes need to happen" but condemned the Government for "whittling the army, navy and airforce" down to dangerous levels, stating how the country is now in a "ridiculous situation".
Utterly disgusting; hugely against the national interest.
Isn't it all an inevitable result of our decades long trade deficit, that we keep on selling off assets in order to balance the books?
It's not as if Meggitt is being sold to Russia.
Precisely. Remember when the “Balance of Payments” figure used to lead the news?
Back in the ‘80s, there were stories of BA being asked by the government to delay the handover of some of their new Boeing 747 aircraft, because a few $200m line items in the wrong month could make quite the difference to the BoP number.
(4/4) Would they actually reduce infections like that? What about: "I thought the vaccines don’t stop you getting Omicron. Or covid at all."
Have you seen the levels of infection and speed of rise? We’ve got an Rt of maybe 1.4. With a virus five to ten times as infectious as original strain covid (which was about 2.4 to 3.0). That means it “should” be somewhere in the 12-30 range. With exponential growth, multiplying by 12 every cycle rather than 1.4 means the ONS prevalence levels should go up within a couple of weeks until it’s a vertical line and the spreadsheet simply says “everyone.”
So, no, it doesn’t stop it dead. It’s not a suit of armour. But it does bounce off quite a bit. If it takes five attempts to get through, down from twenty, it’s reduced your infection level by a lot. People use the seatbelt analogy, and it’s a good one. Seat belts and airbags don’t stop you from dying in a car crash. But they reduce the rate a long way.
“But what about the cost and disruption of rolling them out?”
What disruption? It wouldn’t be the desperate “get jabs in arms NOW so we can release NPIs” of 2021. It’d be more like the winter flu jab regime.
And cost-wise: well you blow past the price of a jab within five minutes of presenting to hospital. And if it saves one day off work per year, you’ve more than made up the difference, haven’t you? Zero covid? Yeah, people still talk about that, but it’s not happening. It would need simultaneous eradication of covid worldwide, and we can’t do that with vaccines, so we’d need a worldwide lockdown at China levels with perfect adherence. No, that’s never happening. It’s here, we’re living with it; we merely have to select how we live with it.
Caution for the most vulnerable, regular boosters, reformulating for the latest strain (and here, the fact that covid seems to be stuck on the Omicron branch of the evolutionary tree is very helpful), HEPA filters, and possibly an increase in hospital capacity make the difference.
Yes, as well as the additional capacity that "living with covid" mandates for all parts of the healthcare system, from pharmacy, to GPs, to Emergency Depts, to hospital beds and to ventilation, we have to factor in a higher staff absence rate due to sickness. Most healthcare is a team effort, and if one member of the team goes ill, the whole team goes down. No anaesthetist and the whole rest of the team is idle.
I think "living with covid" requires a cross the board increase in health care capacity of the order of 10%, as well as the need for passive NPI such as improvements to ventilation and filtering.
Masks for all staff in all areas of my hospital were made compulsory again yesterday at 1700 due to the scale of staff and ward outbreaks.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
Former Armed Forces minister Lord Andrew Robathan shared his outrage at the decreasing size of the UK military in the wake of the raging war in Ukraine.
GB News presenter Nigel Farage probed Lord Robathan on why the Conservatives have continued to cut the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget since 2010.
Lord Robathan acknowledged that "changes need to happen" but condemned the Government for "whittling the army, navy and airforce" down to dangerous levels, stating how the country is now in a "ridiculous situation".
Utterly disgusting; hugely against the national interest.
Isn't it all an inevitable result of our decades long trade deficit, that we keep on selling off assets in order to balance the books?
No. We are perfectly free to impose what restrictions we like.
It is also questionable where our trade deficit is as it is still all rebalancing.
Kwasi Kwarteng is being a fool. Letting a Eurofighter supplier come under US control will put participation in future programmes at risk.
He's also approved the sale of a similarly big supplier, Ultra Electronics. That is being sold to a setup called Advent International who gave lots of assurances before previously buying Cobham, which assurances Amber Rudd dribbled all over Parliament back in about 2018. In reality Cobham was dismembered within 18 months.
Our defence industry is getting some export success, and Kwasi Kwarteng pisses it away. He needs to be hit over the head 100 times with a (metaphorical) cluebat with "strategic autonomy" picked out on it in 6" nails.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
46% of English voters oppose Scottish independence, 34% say it is up to Scots, 13% back Scottish independence.
54% of English Tory voters and 62% of English LDs outright oppose Scottish independence even if only 42% of English Labour voters outright oppose it
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
I think this is all about the next general election. The risk for the SNP is that the next general election is seen as a change election, and the SNP are seen as incumbents responsible in part for the mess the country is in. The SNP have to do all they can to make the election in Scotland different to the election in the rest of Britain.
Can't remember who said it yesterday, but I think it's exactly right that Sturgeon has played a weak hand very well.
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
It would be too funny if the Indy parties won over 50% of votes, but split it in such a way that they actually lost their majority in the Scottish parliament.
How did the new job turn out?
The chap at the cleaning company had got yesterday covered before I met up with him on Monday, but said he'd probably have some work for me this week. On the other job (which I actually want), I should hear today if I've got a second interview.
With spectacularly bad timing, one of my front teeth which has been wobbly since a car crash 25 years ago finally gave up and fell out yesterday. It's really not a good look. I've been sat in front of the mirror practising speaking and smiling without showing my top teeth.
I think if it was me I would explain that (and my intention to fill the gap asap) first thing in the interview. Shane MacGowan look is disconcerting.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
YOu left out the Edward of England bit before Edward the Confessor, but maybe there is some Danish as well anyway. Not to mention the Greek bit (but that came from Germany anyway ...).
Former Armed Forces minister Lord Andrew Robathan shared his outrage at the decreasing size of the UK military in the wake of the raging war in Ukraine.
GB News presenter Nigel Farage probed Lord Robathan on why the Conservatives have continued to cut the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget since 2010.
Lord Robathan acknowledged that "changes need to happen" but condemned the Government for "whittling the army, navy and airforce" down to dangerous levels, stating how the country is now in a "ridiculous situation".
Utterly disgusting; hugely against the national interest.
Isn't it all an inevitable result of our decades long trade deficit, that we keep on selling off assets in order to balance the books?
It's not as if Meggitt is being sold to Russia.
Not really, or not directly. More to do with our weak exchange rate that makes our assets look cheap, and often some technical factors around corporate organisation.
(4/4) Would they actually reduce infections like that? What about: "I thought the vaccines don’t stop you getting Omicron. Or covid at all."
Have you seen the levels of infection and speed of rise? We’ve got an Rt of maybe 1.4. With a virus five to ten times as infectious as original strain covid (which was about 2.4 to 3.0). That means it “should” be somewhere in the 12-30 range. With exponential growth, multiplying by 12 every cycle rather than 1.4 means the ONS prevalence levels should go up within a couple of weeks until it’s a vertical line and the spreadsheet simply says “everyone.”
So, no, it doesn’t stop it dead. It’s not a suit of armour. But it does bounce off quite a bit. If it takes five attempts to get through, down from twenty, it’s reduced your infection level by a lot. People use the seatbelt analogy, and it’s a good one. Seat belts and airbags don’t stop you from dying in a car crash. But they reduce the rate a long way.
“But what about the cost and disruption of rolling them out?”
What disruption? It wouldn’t be the desperate “get jabs in arms NOW so we can release NPIs” of 2021. It’d be more like the winter flu jab regime.
And cost-wise: well you blow past the price of a jab within five minutes of presenting to hospital. And if it saves one day off work per year, you’ve more than made up the difference, haven’t you? Zero covid? Yeah, people still talk about that, but it’s not happening. It would need simultaneous eradication of covid worldwide, and we can’t do that with vaccines, so we’d need a worldwide lockdown at China levels with perfect adherence. No, that’s never happening. It’s here, we’re living with it; we merely have to select how we live with it.
Caution for the most vulnerable, regular boosters, reformulating for the latest strain (and here, the fact that covid seems to be stuck on the Omicron branch of the evolutionary tree is very helpful), HEPA filters, and possibly an increase in hospital capacity make the difference.
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
Westminster surely can block another referendum. Whether it would be politically wise to do so is another matter.
International law has nothing to say on the point.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
They are British now, and have been for some time. The DoE was the last major Royal born abroad, except Meghan of course.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
Depending a bit how patrilinear you are. More recently the Bowes Lyons are pretty Scottish and the Spencers and Middletons pretty English.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
The plan was to threaten and bully the election officials into not certifying Biden's victory. It nearly worked.
Quite. The obsession with not using the word coup relies on a really unnatural precision of language and a seeming (and false) assumption that it requires Moriarty esque scheming and control (and that attempts to illegally seize control, without violence, is not a coup - and they did attempt it since we know they tried to get officials to act illegally).
You look at what the aim was, and whether actions were taken to achieve that aim, and was stoking a violent mob part of that even if it was not wholly controllable. It was.
'It failed and wasn't well planned and involved chaotic elements' is not a persuasive counter argument.
On the referendum the SC set out the position extremely clearly in a unanimous decision quite recently when the SG tried to incorporate a UN Convention on the rights of the Child which impinged on the rights reserved to the UK Parliament. This is the SC press release on the matter: https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2021-0079.html
It seemed to me that Lord Reed went well beyond what was necessary for the particular case to spell out the process in detail and the various safeguards built into the Scotland Act. Specifically in this case the first step is getting the Law Officers in Scotland to confirm that the bill is compatible; secondly the chair of the Parliament doing likewise (although failure to get this does not stop the bill outright) and thirdly the right to refer the Bill when passed to the SC for a ruling.
It remains to be seen if Sturgeon is able to short circuit this. It is entirely possible that the SC will decline to consider the bill until the other stages have been complied with. Even if they do they will follow the reasoning set out in the earlier case which makes it clear that Holyrood cannot pass legislation which impinges in any respect on reserved matters. This path is a dead end and Sturgeon must know it.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
The idea of 'election as referendum' is nonsense of course. That is privately agreed by all. The idea that the SC will jump in to give the SG powers they didn't know they had is pretty fanciful, even if Lady Hale were still around.
The idea that Scots will vote a majority for, in due course, a hard border at Berwick and Gretna, pretending to be anti-nuclear while remaining in NATO (Scots have pride), losing the pound and the BoE, and losing English cash is nearly as fanciful.
So although the debate and discussion will be great, not least for the excellent and regular posts from the charming and insightful supporters of the SNP/the nationalist project here, the entire trompe l'oeil is a valiant and successful attempt to keep the Scottish political process in the hands of the SNP and a multitude of jobs for the boys, and girls, in Edinburgh and Westminster.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
You would say that, wouldn't you? I think you might be wrong without realising it. It is clear that anti monarchism is a factor in TUD's and SD's thinking if not in yours. If I were Sturgeon my golden rule would be No indyref2 until after London Bridge, to get HMQ's personal vote out of the way .
My point was about the historical background to the psychological quirks of the likes of HYUFD. He doesn't like Scotland, has he ever been there? Why does he care?
No, it's a different logical question entirely - though obviously it's easier to take a democratic view in Scotland alone, so the two are linked i n that respect (but, equally, it's hatrdly unique in that sense).
London Bridge is indeed an issue, so that is an intelligent observation you make. But, now you mention it, the issue of Crown interference in politics is now much more salient, especially in Scotland, where George VII to be has been publicly caught out, and this has been confirmed in the recent stuff from the National Archives. Rather unwise of the opposition Unionist parties in Holyrood to keep going on andf on about it and forcing the SG to come clean.
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
It would be too funny if the Indy parties won over 50% of votes, but split it in such a way that they actually lost their majority in the Scottish parliament.
How did the new job turn out?
The chap at the cleaning company had got yesterday covered before I met up with him on Monday, but said he'd probably have some work for me this week. On the other job (which I actually want), I should hear today if I've got a second interview.
With spectacularly bad timing, one of my front teeth which has been wobbly since a car crash 25 years ago finally gave up and fell out yesterday. It's really not a good look. I've been sat in front of the mirror practising speaking and smiling without showing my top teeth.
I think if it was me I would explain that (and my intention to fill the gap asap) first thing in the interview. Shane MacGowan look is disconcerting.
Yeah I'll do that. I don't think I can manage a whole face to face interview without accidentally revealing it at some point, so far better off getting it out of the way straight away. I still don't want to show it off too much after then, though, so the practice has some value.
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
Westminster surely can block another referendum. Whether it would be politically wise to do so is another matter.
International law has nothing to say on the point.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
The plan was to threaten and bully the election officials into not certifying Biden's victory. It nearly worked.
Quite. The obsession with not using the word coup relies on a really unnatural precision of language and a seeming (and false) assumption that it requires Moriarty esque scheming and control.
You look at what the aim was, and whether actions were taken to achieve that aim, and was stoking a violent mob part of that even if it was not wholly controllable. It was.
'It failed and wasn't well planned and involved chaotic elements' is not a persuasive counter argument.
There was also that evidence just given that Trump had to be physically prevented, by the US secret services, from driving to the Capitol to foment the riot.
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
Westminster surely can block another referendum. Whether it would be politically wise to do so is another matter.
International law has nothing to say on the point.
Except in the UN Charter and the ICCPR...
Neither of which will assist. If, for example, Spain chooses to prevent either the Basque country or Catalonia from seceding, or France prevents Corsica from doing so, there is no legal recourse available to those who wish to secede. It all comes down to realpolitik. Are the costs of preventing secession greater than the costs of allowing it?
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
Westminster surely can block another referendum. Whether it would be politically wise to do so is another matter.
International law has nothing to say on the point.
Except in the UN Charter and the ICCPR...
The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council and the UN did sod all when Spain refused Catalonia's Nationalist government an independence referendum
On the referendum the SC set out the position extremely clearly in a unanimous decision quite recently when the SG tried to incorporate a UN Convention on the rights of the Child which impinged on the rights reserved to the UK Parliament. This is the SC press release on the matter: https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2021-0079.html
It seemed to me that Lord Reed went well beyond what was necessary for the particular case to spell out the process in detail and the various safeguards built into the Scotland Act. Specifically in this case the first step is getting the Law Officers in Scotland to confirm that the bill is compatible; secondly the chair of the Parliament doing likewise (although failure to get this does not stop the bill outright) and thirdly the right to refer the Bill when passed to the SC for a ruling.
It remains to be seen if Sturgeon is able to short circuit this. It is entirely possible that the SC will decline to consider the bill until the other stages have been complied with. Even if they do they will follow the reasoning set out in the earlier case which makes it clear that Holyrood cannot pass legislation which impinges in any respect on reserved matters. This path is a dead end and Sturgeon must know it.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
The idea of 'election as referendum' is nonsense of course. That is privately agreed by all. The idea that the SC will jump in to give the SG powers they didn't know they had is pretty fanciful, even if Lady Hale were still around.
The idea that Scots will vote a majority for, in due course, a hard border at Berwick and Gretna, pretending to be anti-nuclear while remaining in NATO (Scots have pride), losing the pound and the BoE, and losing English cash is nearly as fanciful.
So although the debate and discussion will be great, not least for the excellent and regular posts from the charming and insightful supporters of the SNP/the nationalist project here, the entire trompe l'oeil is a valiant and successful attempt to keep the Scottish political process in the hands of the SNP and a multitude of jobs for the boys, and girls, in Edinburgh and Westminster.
I'm not so sure - Sturgeon wants the referendum now because Bozo is, for her and the SNP, the perfect candidate to lead the Stay campaign.
Someone who 80% of the scottish population hates...
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
It would be too funny if the Indy parties won over 50% of votes, but split it in such a way that they actually lost their majority in the Scottish parliament.
How did the new job turn out?
The chap at the cleaning company had got yesterday covered before I met up with him on Monday, but said he'd probably have some work for me this week. On the other job (which I actually want), I should hear today if I've got a second interview.
With spectacularly bad timing, one of my front teeth which has been wobbly since a car crash 25 years ago finally gave up and fell out yesterday. It's really not a good look. I've been sat in front of the mirror practising speaking and smiling without showing my top teeth.
I think if it was me I would explain that (and my intention to fill the gap asap) first thing in the interview. Shane MacGowan look is disconcerting.
Yeah I'll do that. I don't think I can manage a whole face to face interview without accidentally revealing it at some point, so far better off getting it out of the way straight away. I still don't want to show it off too much after then, though, so the practice has some value.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
46% of English voters oppose Scottish independence, 34% say it is up to Scots, 13% back Scottish independence.
54% of English Tory voters and 62% of English LDs outright oppose Scottish independence even if only 42% of English Labour voters outright oppose it
Pretty much everyone that I know seems to think that Scottish self determination is for Scots to decide.
Isn't the problem that the parts of the English political spectrum that overlap with Scotland's (broadly the centre-left and centre) are leaving the defence of the Union to the Conservatives, who are an acquired taste in Scotland.
Which is like expecting Cameron to mount a spirited defence of the EU.
I agree the Scots have the right to self-determination. But we should let them know that it's not just the Brexiteers who would be sorry to see them go.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
Depending a bit how patrilinear you are. More recently the Bowes Lyons are pretty Scottish and the Spencers and Middletons pretty English.
It bodes well for the family's future that Kate's Dad appears to still have all his own hair. If George can find a similarly well-endowed father-in-law then there's hope of breeding the baldness out.
For once, I agree with you. You could, for example, claim that a President was illegitimately elected due to massive large-scale interference by, oooh, let's say Russia and then launch a couple of impeachment hearings on fairly spurious grounds. If you really wanted to go the whole hog, you might fabricate evidence to a special court to sanction the FBI to spy on the opposing Presidential nominee in an upcoming election.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
The Oxford English Dictionary says
a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
It is that not the very literal definition of what Trump was attempting?
Since those storming the Capitol had absolutely no intention of (to say nothing of ability to) forcing a change in the Government by their actions, I'd take a wild stab at 'No'. The highly visual storming 'moment' is now being artificially and cynically chopped up and blended with Trumps other dodgy dealings to remain in power. History is littered with idiotic forlorn protests/attacks. When such events are labelled as coups, it's usually not for a good reason. The Reichstag fire springs to mind.
Even ignoring your insane conspiracy nonsense at the end there you miss the or in the description of coup.
It doesn't need to be a violent to be a coip attempt.
On the referendum the SC set out the position extremely clearly in a unanimous decision quite recently when the SG tried to incorporate a UN Convention on the rights of the Child which impinged on the rights reserved to the UK Parliament. This is the SC press release on the matter: https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2021-0079.html
It seemed to me that Lord Reed went well beyond what was necessary for the particular case to spell out the process in detail and the various safeguards built into the Scotland Act. Specifically in this case the first step is getting the Law Officers in Scotland to confirm that the bill is compatible; secondly the chair of the Parliament doing likewise (although failure to get this does not stop the bill outright) and thirdly the right to refer the Bill when passed to the SC for a ruling.
It remains to be seen if Sturgeon is able to short circuit this. It is entirely possible that the SC will decline to consider the bill until the other stages have been complied with. Even if they do they will follow the reasoning set out in the earlier case which makes it clear that Holyrood cannot pass legislation which impinges in any respect on reserved matters. This path is a dead end and Sturgeon must know it.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
The idea of 'election as referendum' is nonsense of course. That is privately agreed by all. The idea that the SC will jump in to give the SG powers they didn't know they had is pretty fanciful, even if Lady Hale were still around.
The idea that Scots will vote a majority for, in due course, a hard border at Berwick and Gretna, pretending to be anti-nuclear while remaining in NATO (Scots have pride), losing the pound and the BoE, and losing English cash is nearly as fanciful.
So although the debate and discussion will be great, not least for the excellent and regular posts from the charming and insightful supporters of the SNP/the nationalist project here, the entire trompe l'oeil is a valiant and successful attempt to keep the Scottish political process in the hands of the SNP and a multitude of jobs for the boys, and girls, in Edinburgh and Westminster.
I'm not so sure - Sturgeon wants the referendum now because Bozo is, for her and the SNP, the perfect candidate to lead the Stay campaign.
Someone who 80% of the scottish population hates...
That's another interesting point. Will Labour front for Better Together 2 this time round? Will there even be an alliance of the Unionists with Mr Johnson around?
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
I think this is all about the next general election. The risk for the SNP is that the next general election is seen as a change election, and the SNP are seen as incumbents responsible in part for the mess the country is in. The SNP have to do all they can to make the election in Scotland different to the election in the rest of Britain.
Can't remember who said it yesterday, but I think it's exactly right that Sturgeon has played a weak hand very well.
The last time Sturgeon fought a UK general election pushing indyref2 hard in 2017, the SNP lost 21 seats
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
Depending a bit how patrilinear you are. More recently the Bowes Lyons are pretty Scottish and the Spencers and Middletons pretty English.
It bodes well for the family's future that Kate's Dad appears to still have all his own hair. If George can find a similarly well-endowed father-in-law then there's hope of breeding the baldness out.
You also need to look forther back in the stud book and consider the fillies' parents. Baldness is carried through the dams as well.
I'm not in the slightest bothered about the SNP. They have a right to put forth policy and concentrate on one thing at a time. I know little about the machinations in Scotland. I'm merely giving you the impressions I've gained from the scraps of information I do see.
Possibly it's similar to those, like me, who don't concentrate on Scottish politics. Let us be honest. On here we're dealing with political geekdom. Most voters cast their vote on ephemeral impressions unless they're directly concerned.
I enjoy your manufactured spleen and wish you well. It all adds to the mix this site provides.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
46% of English voters oppose Scottish independence, 34% say it is up to Scots, 13% back Scottish independence.
54% of English Tory voters and 62% of English LDs outright oppose Scottish independence even if only 42% of English Labour voters outright oppose it
Pretty much everyone that I know seems to think that Scottish self determination is for Scots to decide.
Yes well you are a leftwinger so most people you know will be leftwing.
How many rightwing Tories do you know who voted for Boris in 2019? The majority of Tory voters as that poll shows are outright opposed to Scottish independence and this Tory government will refuse to allow an official indyref2
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
I think this is all about the next general election. The risk for the SNP is that the next general election is seen as a change election, and the SNP are seen as incumbents responsible in part for the mess the country is in. The SNP have to do all they can to make the election in Scotland different to the election in the rest of Britain.
Can't remember who said it yesterday, but I think it's exactly right that Sturgeon has played a weak hand very well.
The last time Sturgeon fought a UK general election pushing indyref2 hard in 2017, the SNP lost 21 seats
OTOH that was after the 2015 peak - reversion to the mean. And that peak was itself a response to the Unionists, at a time when the indyref issue was still high on the agenda.
And she wasn't puishing indyref2 particularly hard. Not like next time.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
I think this is all about the next general election. The risk for the SNP is that the next general election is seen as a change election, and the SNP are seen as incumbents responsible in part for the mess the country is in. The SNP have to do all they can to make the election in Scotland different to the election in the rest of Britain.
Can't remember who said it yesterday, but I think it's exactly right that Sturgeon has played a weak hand very well.
The last time Sturgeon fought a UK general election pushing indyref2 hard in 2017, the SNP lost 21 seats
OTOH that was after the 2015 peak - reversion to the mean. And that peak was itself a response to the Unionists, at a time when the indyref issue was still high on the agenda.
And she wasn't puishing indyref2 particularly hard. Not like next time.
In 2019 the SNP gained back 13 seats it lost in 2017 on a mainly anti Brexit ticket, those seats are back on the table if Sturgeon keeps pushing indyref2 again
On the referendum the SC set out the position extremely clearly in a unanimous decision quite recently when the SG tried to incorporate a UN Convention on the rights of the Child which impinged on the rights reserved to the UK Parliament. This is the SC press release on the matter: https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2021-0079.html
It seemed to me that Lord Reed went well beyond what was necessary for the particular case to spell out the process in detail and the various safeguards built into the Scotland Act. Specifically in this case the first step is getting the Law Officers in Scotland to confirm that the bill is compatible; secondly the chair of the Parliament doing likewise (although failure to get this does not stop the bill outright) and thirdly the right to refer the Bill when passed to the SC for a ruling.
It remains to be seen if Sturgeon is able to short circuit this. It is entirely possible that the SC will decline to consider the bill until the other stages have been complied with. Even if they do they will follow the reasoning set out in the earlier case which makes it clear that Holyrood cannot pass legislation which impinges in any respect on reserved matters. This path is a dead end and Sturgeon must know it.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
The idea of 'election as referendum' is nonsense of course. That is privately agreed by all. The idea that the SC will jump in to give the SG powers they didn't know they had is pretty fanciful, even if Lady Hale were still around.
The idea that Scots will vote a majority for, in due course, a hard border at Berwick and Gretna, pretending to be anti-nuclear while remaining in NATO (Scots have pride), losing the pound and the BoE, and losing English cash is nearly as fanciful.
So although the debate and discussion will be great, not least for the excellent and regular posts from the charming and insightful supporters of the SNP/the nationalist project here, the entire trompe l'oeil is a valiant and successful attempt to keep the Scottish political process in the hands of the SNP and a multitude of jobs for the boys, and girls, in Edinburgh and Westminster.
I'm not so sure - Sturgeon wants the referendum now because Bozo is, for her and the SNP, the perfect candidate to lead the Stay campaign.
Someone who 80% of the scottish population hates...
That's another interesting point. Will Labour front for Better Together 2 this time round? Will there even be an alliance of the Unionists with Mr Johnson around?
Could labour allow their politicians to campaign for both, depending on their view ?
Planning for a post referendum Scotland whatever the result ?
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
Depending a bit how patrilinear you are. More recently the Bowes Lyons are pretty Scottish and the Spencers and Middletons pretty English.
It bodes well for the family's future that Kate's Dad appears to still have all his own hair. If George can find a similarly well-endowed father-in-law then there's hope of breeding the baldness out.
Anti baldness truly is the last acceptable form of prejudice.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
I think this is all about the next general election. The risk for the SNP is that the next general election is seen as a change election, and the SNP are seen as incumbents responsible in part for the mess the country is in. The SNP have to do all they can to make the election in Scotland different to the election in the rest of Britain.
Can't remember who said it yesterday, but I think it's exactly right that Sturgeon has played a weak hand very well.
The last time Sturgeon fought a UK general election pushing indyref2 hard in 2017, the SNP lost 21 seats
OTOH that was after the 2015 peak - reversion to the mean. And that peak was itself a response to the Unionists, at a time when the indyref issue was still high on the agenda.
And she wasn't puishing indyref2 particularly hard. Not like next time.
In 2019 the SNP gained back 13 seats it lost in 2017 on a mainly anti Brexit ticket, those seats are back on the table if Sturgeon keeps pushing indyref2 again
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
Not quite. Biologically of course it's a complete mishmash, like the rest of us, and (sotto voce) in any line of descent the matrilineal line is pretty reliable while it is a wise child who knows who their father is, as any female mallard will testify.
But history being what it is some lines matter a little more than others. The fact that HM the Queen is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (assuming the ducks and drakes of history are all telling the truth) matters more than that she is a collateral descendent of Geoffrey Chaucer's wife, though much history turns on that remarkable relationship.
I remember Charles Moore alleging in the Spectator once that HM the Queen was a direct descendent of the Prophet through Pedro the Cruel. It would add to the lustre as far as I am concerned it that were the case.
A massive reward of honour awaits anyone who could prove reliably the descent of HM the Queen from antiquity (pre c500 AD). Astonishingly it can't be done for her, or anyone else in the west. if it could, it certainly would not be English/British.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
46% of English voters oppose Scottish independence, 34% say it is up to Scots, 13% back Scottish independence.
54% of English Tory voters and 62% of English LDs outright oppose Scottish independence even if only 42% of English Labour voters outright oppose it
Pretty much everyone that I know seems to think that Scottish self determination is for Scots to decide.
Yes well you are a leftwinger so most people you know will be leftwing.
How many rightwing Tories do you know who voted for Boris in 2019? The majority of Tory voters as that poll shows are outright opposed to Scottish independence and this Tory government will refuse to allow an official indyref2
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
Depending a bit how patrilinear you are. More recently the Bowes Lyons are pretty Scottish and the Spencers and Middletons pretty English.
It bodes well for the family's future that Kate's Dad appears to still have all his own hair. If George can find a similarly well-endowed father-in-law then there's hope of breeding the baldness out.
Anti baldness truly is the last acceptable form of prejudice.
Along with white working class male. An even greater scandal.
Former Armed Forces minister Lord Andrew Robathan shared his outrage at the decreasing size of the UK military in the wake of the raging war in Ukraine.
GB News presenter Nigel Farage probed Lord Robathan on why the Conservatives have continued to cut the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget since 2010.
Lord Robathan acknowledged that "changes need to happen" but condemned the Government for "whittling the army, navy and airforce" down to dangerous levels, stating how the country is now in a "ridiculous situation".
Utterly disgusting; hugely against the national interest.
Isn't it all an inevitable result of our decades long trade deficit, that we keep on selling off assets in order to balance the books?
No. We are perfectly free to impose what restrictions we like.
It is also questionable where our trade deficit is as it is still all rebalancing.
Kwasi Kwarteng is being a fool. Letting a Eurofighter supplier come under US control will put participation in future programmes at risk.
He's also approved the sale of a similarly big supplier, Ultra Electronics. That is being sold to a setup called Advent International who gave lots of assurances before previously buying Cobham, which assurances Amber Rudd dribbled all over Parliament back in about 2018. In reality Cobham was dismembered within 18 months.
Our defence industry is getting some export success, and Kwasi Kwarteng pisses it away. He needs to be hit over the head 100 times with a (metaphorical) cluebat with "strategic autonomy" picked out on it in 6" nails.
The US threatened to withhold defence cooperation if we didn't, so he might not have had much choice.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
Depending a bit how patrilinear you are. More recently the Bowes Lyons are pretty Scottish and the Spencers and Middletons pretty English.
It bodes well for the family's future that Kate's Dad appears to still have all his own hair. If George can find a similarly well-endowed father-in-law then there's hope of breeding the baldness out.
Anti baldness truly is the last acceptable form of prejudice.
Along with white working class male. An even greater scandal.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
Not quite. Biologically of course it's a complete mishmash, like the rest of us, and (sotto voce) in any line of descent the matrilineal line is pretty reliable while it is a wise child who knows who their father is, as any female mallard will testify.
But history being what it is some lines matter a little more than others. The fact that HM the Queen is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (assuming the ducks and drakes of history are all telling the truth) matters more than that she is a collateral descendent of Geoffrey Chaucer's wife, though much history turns on that remarkable relationship.
I remember Charles Moore alleging in the Spectator once that HM the Queen was a direct descendent of the Prophet through Pedro the Cruel. It would add to the lustre as far as I am concerned it that were the case.
A massive reward of honour awaits anyone who could prove reliably the descent of HM the Queen from antiquity (pre c500 AD). Astonishingly it can't be done for her, or anyone else in the west. if it could, it certainly would not be English/British.
The Queen is certainly half-Scottish.
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon from a Scottish aristocratic family.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
I think this is all about the next general election. The risk for the SNP is that the next general election is seen as a change election, and the SNP are seen as incumbents responsible in part for the mess the country is in. The SNP have to do all they can to make the election in Scotland different to the election in the rest of Britain.
Can't remember who said it yesterday, but I think it's exactly right that Sturgeon has played a weak hand very well.
The last time Sturgeon fought a UK general election pushing indyref2 hard in 2017, the SNP lost 21 seats
OTOH that was after the 2015 peak - reversion to the mean. And that peak was itself a response to the Unionists, at a time when the indyref issue was still high on the agenda.
And she wasn't puishing indyref2 particularly hard. Not like next time.
In 2019 the SNP gained back 13 seats it lost in 2017 on a mainly anti Brexit ticket, those seats are back on the table if Sturgeon keeps pushing indyref2 again
She was pushing it even more in 2019 ...
No she wasn't, she fought it on a stop Brexit campaign and second EU Referendum ticket
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
I think this is all about the next general election. The risk for the SNP is that the next general election is seen as a change election, and the SNP are seen as incumbents responsible in part for the mess the country is in. The SNP have to do all they can to make the election in Scotland different to the election in the rest of Britain.
Can't remember who said it yesterday, but I think it's exactly right that Sturgeon has played a weak hand very well.
The last time Sturgeon fought a UK general election pushing indyref2 hard in 2017, the SNP lost 21 seats
OTOH that was after the 2015 peak - reversion to the mean. And that peak was itself a response to the Unionists, at a time when the indyref issue was still high on the agenda.
And she wasn't puishing indyref2 particularly hard. Not like next time.
In 2019 the SNP gained back 13 seats it lost in 2017 on a mainly anti Brexit ticket, those seats are back on the table if Sturgeon keeps pushing indyref2 again
She was pushing it even more in 2019 ...
No she wasn't, she fought it on a stop Brexit campaign and second EU Referendum ticket
On the referendum the SC set out the position extremely clearly in a unanimous decision quite recently when the SG tried to incorporate a UN Convention on the rights of the Child which impinged on the rights reserved to the UK Parliament. This is the SC press release on the matter: https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2021-0079.html
It seemed to me that Lord Reed went well beyond what was necessary for the particular case to spell out the process in detail and the various safeguards built into the Scotland Act. Specifically in this case the first step is getting the Law Officers in Scotland to confirm that the bill is compatible; secondly the chair of the Parliament doing likewise (although failure to get this does not stop the bill outright) and thirdly the right to refer the Bill when passed to the SC for a ruling.
It remains to be seen if Sturgeon is able to short circuit this. It is entirely possible that the SC will decline to consider the bill until the other stages have been complied with. Even if they do they will follow the reasoning set out in the earlier case which makes it clear that Holyrood cannot pass legislation which impinges in any respect on reserved matters. This path is a dead end and Sturgeon must know it.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
The idea of 'election as referendum' is nonsense of course. That is privately agreed by all. The idea that the SC will jump in to give the SG powers they didn't know they had is pretty fanciful, even if Lady Hale were still around.
The idea that Scots will vote a majority for, in due course, a hard border at Berwick and Gretna, pretending to be anti-nuclear while remaining in NATO (Scots have pride), losing the pound and the BoE, and losing English cash is nearly as fanciful.
So although the debate and discussion will be great, not least for the excellent and regular posts from the charming and insightful supporters of the SNP/the nationalist project here, the entire trompe l'oeil is a valiant and successful attempt to keep the Scottish political process in the hands of the SNP and a multitude of jobs for the boys, and girls, in Edinburgh and Westminster.
I'm not so sure - Sturgeon wants the referendum now because Bozo is, for her and the SNP, the perfect candidate to lead the Stay campaign.
Someone who 80% of the scottish population hates...
That's another interesting point. Will Labour front for Better Together 2 this time round? Will there even be an alliance of the Unionists with Mr Johnson around?
Could labour allow their politicians to campaign for both, depending on their view ?
Planning for a post referendum Scotland whatever the result ?
Hmm. Or Westminster, for that matter? Interesting point. I don't know. Slab is tribally fully opposed to the SNP, at least at the highest levels. Loss of birthright and all that. But ...
A lot of Labour voters (and members) are pro-indy, though the pool has partly dried up by loss to the SNP and Greens, and the proportion isn't as high as it was - which means they are competing with the Tories more than before. That is one issue.
Another is what happens at Westminster. SKS may take a view in return for coalition or c&s from the SNP, depending on the electoral maths. It may be one that Slab don't like.
Another is that Slab are not a separate party in the sense of the others. SKS or Ms Formby are the organ grinders and can yank the chain whenever they wish. So although Slab sees Scotland as its birthright, they can't split and form a separate party without having to start again with initially zero assets.
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
So they are saying Hutchinson just lied on oath after clearly searching her soul?
Christ.
They better be bloody sure there isn't some CCTV footage we haven't seen or another witness because otherwise they are going down for a very long time and the there's not much room in a bunk in St Quentin.
Was Hutchinson in the car? If not, isn't this part of her testimony hearsay?
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
Westminster surely can block another referendum. Whether it would be politically wise to do so is another matter.
International law has nothing to say on the point.
Except in the UN Charter and the ICCPR...
Neither of which will assist. If, for example, Spain chooses to prevent either the Basque country or Catalonia from seceding, or France prevents Corsica from doing so, there is no legal recourse available to those who wish to secede. It all comes down to realpolitik. Are the costs of preventing secession greater than the costs of allowing it?
And realpolitik has already told in some of our dealings with our former colonies.
For example, if China had been like Spain (a democracy of lesser power than our own) then Hong Kong would today probably have a status similar to Gibraltar.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
I think this is all about the next general election. The risk for the SNP is that the next general election is seen as a change election, and the SNP are seen as incumbents responsible in part for the mess the country is in. The SNP have to do all they can to make the election in Scotland different to the election in the rest of Britain.
Can't remember who said it yesterday, but I think it's exactly right that Sturgeon has played a weak hand very well.
The last time Sturgeon fought a UK general election pushing indyref2 hard in 2017, the SNP lost 21 seats
OTOH that was after the 2015 peak - reversion to the mean. And that peak was itself a response to the Unionists, at a time when the indyref issue was still high on the agenda.
And she wasn't puishing indyref2 particularly hard. Not like next time.
In 2019 the SNP gained back 13 seats it lost in 2017 on a mainly anti Brexit ticket, those seats are back on the table if Sturgeon keeps pushing indyref2 again
She was pushing it even more in 2019 ...
No she wasn't, she fought it on a stop Brexit campaign and second EU Referendum ticket
As well. GEs are like that, usually. (And what happens if we didn't get a return to the EU? It's the same issue.)
In any case, the Tories in Scotland made Tory politics and elections a single issue Stop Indyref matter for years under Ms Davidson, until just before the 2019 election when the paperwork started being a bit more "Scottish Conservatives" rather than RUTHSAYSNOTOINDYREF!!!!
On the referendum the SC set out the position extremely clearly in a unanimous decision quite recently when the SG tried to incorporate a UN Convention on the rights of the Child which impinged on the rights reserved to the UK Parliament. This is the SC press release on the matter: https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2021-0079.html
It seemed to me that Lord Reed went well beyond what was necessary for the particular case to spell out the process in detail and the various safeguards built into the Scotland Act. Specifically in this case the first step is getting the Law Officers in Scotland to confirm that the bill is compatible; secondly the chair of the Parliament doing likewise (although failure to get this does not stop the bill outright) and thirdly the right to refer the Bill when passed to the SC for a ruling.
It remains to be seen if Sturgeon is able to short circuit this. It is entirely possible that the SC will decline to consider the bill until the other stages have been complied with. Even if they do they will follow the reasoning set out in the earlier case which makes it clear that Holyrood cannot pass legislation which impinges in any respect on reserved matters. This path is a dead end and Sturgeon must know it.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
The idea of 'election as referendum' is nonsense of course. That is privately agreed by all. The idea that the SC will jump in to give the SG powers they didn't know they had is pretty fanciful, even if Lady Hale were still around.
The idea that Scots will vote a majority for, in due course, a hard border at Berwick and Gretna, pretending to be anti-nuclear while remaining in NATO (Scots have pride), losing the pound and the BoE, and losing English cash is nearly as fanciful.
So although the debate and discussion will be great, not least for the excellent and regular posts from the charming and insightful supporters of the SNP/the nationalist project here, the entire trompe l'oeil is a valiant and successful attempt to keep the Scottish political process in the hands of the SNP and a multitude of jobs for the boys, and girls, in Edinburgh and Westminster.
I'm not so sure - Sturgeon wants the referendum now because Bozo is, for her and the SNP, the perfect candidate to lead the Stay campaign.
Someone who 80% of the Scottish population hates...
Short-termism by Sturgeon - she knows he won't be PM by October 2023.
What is more interesting is what is painted as a win by the SNP. Most seats, no doubt, will be said to demonstrate the will of the Scottish people for another independence vote. But that could be achieved on the back of 43% of total votes cast - lower than the YES vote of 2014.
Moving to a general election result from a referendum result allows the SNP to keep going even though the case for independence appears to be making little or no forward progress. Unsurprising, given that the SNP will not address the fundamentals of what a post-indy Scotland would look like.
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
It would be too funny if the Indy parties won over 50% of votes, but split it in such a way that they actually lost their majority in the Scottish parliament.
How did the new job turn out?
The chap at the cleaning company had got yesterday covered before I met up with him on Monday, but said he'd probably have some work for me this week. On the other job (which I actually want), I should hear today if I've got a second interview.
With spectacularly bad timing, one of my front teeth which has been wobbly since a car crash 25 years ago finally gave up and fell out yesterday. It's really not a good look. I've been sat in front of the mirror practising speaking and smiling without showing my top teeth.
I think if it was me I would explain that (and my intention to fill the gap asap) first thing in the interview. Shane MacGowan look is disconcerting.
Yeah I'll do that. I don't think I can manage a whole face to face interview without accidentally revealing it at some point, so far better off getting it out of the way straight away. I still don't want to show it off too much after then, though, so the practice has some value.
I think you use it to your advantage - tell the interviewer right up front that you have just lost your front teeth but that you are not going to let that stop you doing the interview for this job, which you are very keen on.
(1/4) I saw the chat last night on the current covid state, so I, inevitably, have decided to put in my semi-informed two penn’orth. Which is: we’re in the third Omicron wave. Around one in thirty of us have covid right now (up from a low of one in seventy). For some, it’s a summer cold. For others, it’s a nasty flu. For a few, it’s severe enough for hospitalisation, even with the immunity levels we’ve got.
This is the end state as it stands. You will catch covid an average of 1-4 times per year. All of us will. Some will be lucky and miss a year or two; others will be unlucky and catch it at every wave. And reinfections aren't necessarily less nasty than the previous infection.
I’ve had real ‘flu maybe three or four times in my life (rather than a bad cold). That’s a bit under once per decade, and I think that’s pretty representative. You probably get just under one real case of flu per decade. You will catch covid 10-40 times over the next decade, unless something changes. So will each of your loved ones.
There is also the question of what proportion of hospitalisations are FOR rather than WITH covid. We don’t need to speculate, the figures are published. It’s about 36% right now (up from 30% at the low). But it’s still WAY below the 70-80% in the pre-Omicron and pre-vaccine days. Don’t get me wrong, those with incidental covid are not irrelevant. You still have to isolate them, it causes complexities in treatment, and worsens prognoses (there are no cases where “Oh, and you’ve got covid as well,” is a positive phrase to hear if you’re hospitalised and vulnerable due to something else). But it’s still qualitatively different from “You’ve caught covid so bad you’ve been rushed to hospital due to covid itself.”
And, yes, we still have a baseline of about 50 people per day dying FROM covid, who would have lived otherwise.
We will have between 1 million and 5 million people in the UK with covid; it’ll vary as the waves come and go. These are hitting fairly regularly – we had the original Omicron wave in December/January, the BA.2 wave in March/April, and now the BA.4/5 wave in June/July.
(Which implies that February and May were good months, and maybe August will be as well).
Thanks for an excellent series of posts.
On "real flu" vs "bad cold" how do you know it is three or four and not ten or more? We do not test for the difference between colds and flus, and surely a big lesson from covid is that the range of outcomes from such illnesses is very wide. Will there not be asymptomatic and mild flu and severe colds that overlap significantly in severity such that we cannot tell the difference without testing?
🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
So they are saying Hutchinson just lied on oath after clearly searching her soul?
Christ.
They better be bloody sure there isn't some CCTV footage we haven't seen or another witness because otherwise they are going down for a very long time and the there's not much room in a bunk in St Quentin.
Was Hutchinson in the car? If not, isn't this part of her testimony hearsay?
Sorry to hear about your husband and daughter coming down with Covid.
I'm not surprised that the Rowe vs Wade reversal is helping the Democrats. The only cohort it serves are religious Republicans. Many Republicans will be repulsed by this.
(4/4) Would they actually reduce infections like that? What about: "I thought the vaccines don’t stop you getting Omicron. Or covid at all."
Have you seen the levels of infection and speed of rise? We’ve got an Rt of maybe 1.4. With a virus five to ten times as infectious as original strain covid (which was about 2.4 to 3.0). That means it “should” be somewhere in the 12-30 range. With exponential growth, multiplying by 12 every cycle rather than 1.4 means the ONS prevalence levels should go up within a couple of weeks until it’s a vertical line and the spreadsheet simply says “everyone.”
So, no, it doesn’t stop it dead. It’s not a suit of armour. But it does bounce off quite a bit. If it takes five attempts to get through, down from twenty, it’s reduced your infection level by a lot. People use the seatbelt analogy, and it’s a good one. Seat belts and airbags don’t stop you from dying in a car crash. But they reduce the rate a long way.
“But what about the cost and disruption of rolling them out?”
What disruption? It wouldn’t be the desperate “get jabs in arms NOW so we can release NPIs” of 2021. It’d be more like the winter flu jab regime.
And cost-wise: well you blow past the price of a jab within five minutes of presenting to hospital. And if it saves one day off work per year, you’ve more than made up the difference, haven’t you? Zero covid? Yeah, people still talk about that, but it’s not happening. It would need simultaneous eradication of covid worldwide, and we can’t do that with vaccines, so we’d need a worldwide lockdown at China levels with perfect adherence. No, that’s never happening. It’s here, we’re living with it; we merely have to select how we live with it.
Caution for the most vulnerable, regular boosters, reformulating for the latest strain (and here, the fact that covid seems to be stuck on the Omicron branch of the evolutionary tree is very helpful), HEPA filters, and possibly an increase in hospital capacity make the difference.
Andy - great set of posts. I agree almost totally, except that we really don't know the future. Some are suggesting we will be stuck in this loop forever, with as you say up to 4 bouts of covid each a year. I am not convinced by this. Its certainly true that omicron is great at evading pre-existing neutralising antibodies, but the vaccines and infections have hammered the potential for serious disease. At the moment covid has become stuck at omicron (variants of). Its possible, if not likely that a new variant will emerge in time that is from a different branch, or significantly different to warrant its own designation. But its also quite possible that two or three goes at omicron will lead to a much lower chance of future infections.
I, along with many others, have still not had covid (that I know of).
As to what we do - totally agree on air quality and its frankly a disgrace that government isn't doing a moonshot to do this in every hospital ward, care home and school classroom.
I also agree about treating people who choose to wear a mask with respect. You cannot know their reasons - they may well be clinically vulnerable but also wish to live their lives. It does cut both ways.
So - thanks for taking the time to lay that out.
Edit - Care home, not car home, which is of course a garage...
On the referendum the SC set out the position extremely clearly in a unanimous decision quite recently when the SG tried to incorporate a UN Convention on the rights of the Child which impinged on the rights reserved to the UK Parliament. This is the SC press release on the matter: https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2021-0079.html
It seemed to me that Lord Reed went well beyond what was necessary for the particular case to spell out the process in detail and the various safeguards built into the Scotland Act. Specifically in this case the first step is getting the Law Officers in Scotland to confirm that the bill is compatible; secondly the chair of the Parliament doing likewise (although failure to get this does not stop the bill outright) and thirdly the right to refer the Bill when passed to the SC for a ruling.
It remains to be seen if Sturgeon is able to short circuit this. It is entirely possible that the SC will decline to consider the bill until the other stages have been complied with. Even if they do they will follow the reasoning set out in the earlier case which makes it clear that Holyrood cannot pass legislation which impinges in any respect on reserved matters. This path is a dead end and Sturgeon must know it.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
The idea of 'election as referendum' is nonsense of course. That is privately agreed by all. The idea that the SC will jump in to give the SG powers they didn't know they had is pretty fanciful, even if Lady Hale were still around.
The idea that Scots will vote a majority for, in due course, a hard border at Berwick and Gretna, pretending to be anti-nuclear while remaining in NATO (Scots have pride), losing the pound and the BoE, and losing English cash is nearly as fanciful.
So although the debate and discussion will be great, not least for the excellent and regular posts from the charming and insightful supporters of the SNP/the nationalist project here, the entire trompe l'oeil is a valiant and successful attempt to keep the Scottish political process in the hands of the SNP and a multitude of jobs for the boys, and girls, in Edinburgh and Westminster.
I'm not so sure - Sturgeon wants the referendum now because Bozo is, for her and the SNP, the perfect candidate to lead the Stay campaign.
Someone who 80% of the scottish population hates...
IMHO NS wants no referendum whatsoever, and has set in train a process designed to keep the issue bubbling but not occurring.
This is essential to hold together the alliance which consists of:
Those who want independence + EU Those who want independence - EU Those who want independence at any time so long as it is in the future Those who think it is all nonsense but have to be in the SNP because they are the ANC of Scottish politics.
And anyway, the next leader, Kate Forbes, is only about 12 so the seat has to be kept warm for her for a couple of years.
I can see Scotland from my (English) road, believe the prospect of independence is approximately zero and propose to enjoy every minute of the constitutional pantomime.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
Depending a bit how patrilinear you are. More recently the Bowes Lyons are pretty Scottish and the Spencers and Middletons pretty English.
It bodes well for the family's future that Kate's Dad appears to still have all his own hair. If George can find a similarly well-endowed father-in-law then there's hope of breeding the baldness out.
Anti baldness truly is the last acceptable form of prejudice.
Along with white working class male. An even greater scandal.
Why are white working class males more deserving of our sympathy than baldies? Do white working class males get sunstroke if they go out without a hat? Are white working class males constantly being belittled through so-called humorous posts on niche websites? (quite the opposite - most Tory posters on here would do anything to support their interests, short of giving them an above inflation pay rise). Compared to the folically challenged, the privilege enjoyed by white working class males is enviable. They have their own newspapers, their sport is the national sport, politicians are falling over each other to represent their interests - not a day passes without some new salient opening up in the relentless War on Woke, for instance. Where is the War on Hair? Fucking nowhere to be seen.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
I think this is all about the next general election. The risk for the SNP is that the next general election is seen as a change election, and the SNP are seen as incumbents responsible in part for the mess the country is in. The SNP have to do all they can to make the election in Scotland different to the election in the rest of Britain.
Can't remember who said it yesterday, but I think it's exactly right that Sturgeon has played a weak hand very well.
The last time Sturgeon fought a UK general election pushing indyref2 hard in 2017, the SNP lost 21 seats
OTOH that was after the 2015 peak - reversion to the mean. And that peak was itself a response to the Unionists, at a time when the indyref issue was still high on the agenda.
And she wasn't puishing indyref2 particularly hard. Not like next time.
In 2019 the SNP gained back 13 seats it lost in 2017 on a mainly anti Brexit ticket, those seats are back on the table if Sturgeon keeps pushing indyref2 again
She was pushing it even more in 2019 ...
No she wasn't, she fought it on a stop Brexit campaign and second EU Referendum ticket
I read you the first time. This isn't panto season.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
Remind me how that worked out in Catalonia?
Catalonia has not gone away - it will fester away until it bursts open again - it is only a matter of time
Yes, as well as the additional capacity that "living with covid" mandates for all parts of the healthcare system, from pharmacy, to GPs, to Emergency Depts, to hospital beds and to ventilation, we have to factor in a higher staff absence rate due to sickness. Most healthcare is a team effort, and if one member of the team goes ill, the whole team goes down. No anaesthetist and the whole rest of the team is idle.
I think "living with covid" requires a cross the board increase in health care capacity of the order of 10%, as well as the need for passive NPI such as improvements to ventilation and filtering.
Masks for all staff in all areas of my hospital were made compulsory again yesterday at 1700 due to the scale of staff and ward outbreaks.
Informative post. Funnily enough I went for my regular physio appointment for my legs at my GP yesterday. For the first time masks were not mandated and nobody was wearing one (staff or patients).
I'm not surprised that the Rowe vs Wade reversal is helping the Democrats. The only cohort it serves are religious Republicans. Many Republicans will be repulsed by this.
For pro lifers however it doesn't matter.
Having the first Supreme Court majority to reverse Roe v Wade and return abortion to the states is far more important for them than a GOP Congress. Indeed even if Congress and Biden passed a law making abortion on demand legal again nationwide, this SC would rule it unconstitutional. It would take a near impossible 2/3 majority of both Chambers of Congress and 3/4 of all States to pass a constitutional amendment for nationwide legal abortion.
Ironically Trump's greatest legacy will be for the pro life cause in America, even if he has now screwed the GOP in the midterms through his SC judge appointments
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
Not quite. Biologically of course it's a complete mishmash, like the rest of us, and (sotto voce) in any line of descent the matrilineal line is pretty reliable while it is a wise child who knows who their father is, as any female mallard will testify.
But history being what it is some lines matter a little more than others. The fact that HM the Queen is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (assuming the ducks and drakes of history are all telling the truth) matters more than that she is a collateral descendent of Geoffrey Chaucer's wife, though much history turns on that remarkable relationship.
I remember Charles Moore alleging in the Spectator once that HM the Queen was a direct descendent of the Prophet through Pedro the Cruel. It would add to the lustre as far as I am concerned it that were the case.
A massive reward of honour awaits anyone who could prove reliably the descent of HM the Queen from antiquity (pre c500 AD). Astonishingly it can't be done for her, or anyone else in the west. if it could, it certainly would not be English/British.
I can “provably” trace my descent back to Maud Ingelric, the supposed concubine of William the Conqueror, who married a Normam Knight, Ranulph Peverel. it was the lordly Peverels who later went west into Cornwall, where they eventually became minor gentry, and in some cases really quite poor
Using online genealogies I traced Ingelric and Co back to Roman senators, and a Nordic god of ice and fire
Complete bollocks of course, but great fun. The trouble is the end of the Roman Empire in the west severed nearly all family trees between 400-600AD. I suppose the only way you could provably trace descent from antiquity would be if you descended from Byzantine aristos who might then, in turn, be traceable back to Roman times?
For once, I agree with you. You could, for example, claim that a President was illegitimately elected due to massive large-scale interference by, oooh, let's say Russia and then launch a couple of impeachment hearings on fairly spurious grounds. If you really wanted to go the whole hog, you might fabricate evidence to a special court to sanction the FBI to spy on the opposing Presidential nominee in an upcoming election.
Can't really see how you can argue there wasn't an attempted Coup? That it failed was incompetence and because a handful of key players resisted. Rafflensperger (sp.?), Pence, Cheney and Hutchinson. And doubtless a few others. But it was an attempted Coup. By a mafia Don. He was well named.
I said there wouldn’t be a coup.
There was no coup.
However one describes the disgraceful, shambolic scenes on 6 January, a coup it was not.
Well. It wasn't a successful Coup. I'll give you that.
It wasn't a successful riot. It wasn't even an attempted coup.
5 dead. What was the intention?
Of course it was a bloody coup (attempt). It’s just that Luckyboy is conditioned (as we all are) to think of them as things that happen in third world countries.
No, it was not. You can repeat it as often as you like; it isn't going to get any truer. There was no attempted coup, because there was no attempt, intention, or plan, to take over the Government of the United States. There wasn't a botched plan, or a fatally-flawed plan, or even an insanely stupid plan, there. wasn't. a. plan. Nobody invading the Capitol that day thought that they were taking over the Government of the US. I find it a bit sad that so many on a forum with a very high level of discussion are prepared to abandon basic fact 'because Trump'. It's disappointingly weak minded.
It appears that there was a plan to take over the Government of the United States, or at least to prevent the relinquishing of power.
The plan was multi-farious, but included the use of a violent mob to suborn, immobilise or perhaps murder the Vice President.
It doesn't appear that there was anything of the sort. As you are perfectly well aware, everything that Trump did, said, or thought in the election aftermath (true or otherwise it would appear from posts upthread) is now being flung in the coup casserole in the hopes that it ammounts to something coup-like. Well quite clearly it doesn't. Even if there were a plan or intention to lynch the VP, it wouldn't have gained the rioters power, or affected the election outcome. Sorry to be dull, but definitions are quite important.
I don't think that 'coup' means what you think it means, with apologies to The Princess Bride.
You've got an Edward Luttwak-style Wild Geese seizure of the radio station and President in an African autocracy in mind.
But incumbents meddling with electoral timetables was a pretty standard tool in the armoury for despots during the Cold War.
Using violent protests to interfere with the handover of power with the intention of overturning a democratic election result looks pretty close to a coup to me.
With great respect for your opinion, thankfully we have dictionaries which mean we don't have to rely entirely upon it.
The Oxford English Dictionary says
a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power.
It is that not the very literal definition of what Trump was attempting?
Since those storming the Capitol had absolutely no intention of (to say nothing of ability to) forcing a change in the Government by their actions, I'd take a wild stab at 'No'. The highly visual storming 'moment' is now being artificially and cynically chopped up and blended with Trumps other dodgy dealings to remain in power. History is littered with idiotic forlorn protests/attacks. When such events are labelled as coups, it's usually not for a good reason. The Reichstag fire springs to mind.
Even ignoring your insane conspiracy nonsense at the end there you miss the or in the description of coup.
It doesn't need to be a violent to be a coip attempt.
Hurray.
It was Whataboutery.
I was wondering if you were just going to ghost us for a few days rather than trying to run interference.
I'm not surprised that the Rowe vs Wade reversal is helping the Democrats. The only cohort it serves are religious Republicans. Many Republicans will be repulsed by this.
Don’t normally mention typos but this one is persistent and looks like an actual error (not a typo)
I'm not surprised that the Rowe vs Wade reversal is helping the Democrats. The only cohort it serves are religious Republicans. Many Republicans will be repulsed by this.
Good start. The reversal of RvW simply places the USA in the same position as us. Voters and legislators decide tricky issues, not courts. Courts interpret ambiguity, decide the right answers in actual particular situations etc. They are not law makers. They protect the framework and judge between causes in dispute.
Maybe by the next election Trump will be in prison and voters will have realised that it is they only who take charge of their destiny.
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
Westminster surely can block another referendum. Whether it would be politically wise to do so is another matter.
International law has nothing to say on the point.
Except in the UN Charter and the ICCPR...
Neither of which will assist. If, for example, Spain chooses to prevent either the Basque country or Catalonia from seceding, or France prevents Corsica from doing so, there is no legal recourse available to those who wish to secede. It all comes down to realpolitik. Are the costs of preventing secession greater than the costs of allowing it?
And realpolitik has already told in some of our dealings with our former colonies.
For example, if China had been like Spain (a democracy of lesser power than our own) then Hong Kong would today probably have a status similar to Gibraltar.
I don't think that's right. The key difference was that we only ever had a 99-year lease on the New Territories, and the colony wasn't viable without them. Gibraltar was ceded to Britain in perpetuity by the Treaty of Utrecht.
It occurs to me that ‘allowing’ Indy ref II might solve a lot of Johnson’s short term problems (and when has the FLSOJ ever thought much beyond the short term). Unlike a GE he can say it has been forced on him, we are a country that respects democracy, more in regret than in anger etc. He can then indulge in his favourite activity of wrapping himself in the flag for 15 months and rally the UKIP lite party that is now the Cons: we must unite to resist the vile secessionists who seek to divide this great country. His politics thrives on divisiveness and what would be more divisive than a Engnat government squaring off with a Scotnat one? And of course there’s the big prize which PB Sc*tch experts insist is the most likely outcome, BJ could win it.
It would also put SKS and Lab in an exceedingly awkward position.
I am not particularly convinced that Unionism is a popular policy in England, whether of the Scottish or Irish persuasion. Obviously potent for Unionist communities in those countries, but in England I think there are only a few HYUFD tankies, the rest would just shrug, or even encourage the Scots or Irish to go.
I think in HYUFD think and perhaps more generally it is tied up with monarchy. The union of the crowns was a necessary precondition of the union proper at a time when these things mattered.
Er, doesn't make sense. The monarchy is not particularly under threat in Scotland, independence or not.
It shouldn't be.
It's basically Scottish.
Louis XVI, basically French
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
I would have thought our Royal Family was German first (the Georgians), then Dutch (William of Orange), then Scottish (James 6th / 1st) and then Norman. The Royal Family have never been English as before the Normans it was Anglo Saxon and there wasn't such a thing as a single country called England.
Not quite. Biologically of course it's a complete mishmash, like the rest of us, and (sotto voce) in any line of descent the matrilineal line is pretty reliable while it is a wise child who knows who their father is, as any female mallard will testify.
But history being what it is some lines matter a little more than others. The fact that HM the Queen is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (assuming the ducks and drakes of history are all telling the truth) matters more than that she is a collateral descendent of Geoffrey Chaucer's wife, though much history turns on that remarkable relationship.
I remember Charles Moore alleging in the Spectator once that HM the Queen was a direct descendent of the Prophet through Pedro the Cruel. It would add to the lustre as far as I am concerned it that were the case.
A massive reward of honour awaits anyone who could prove reliably the descent of HM the Queen from antiquity (pre c500 AD). Astonishingly it can't be done for her, or anyone else in the west. if it could, it certainly would not be English/British.
I can “provably” trace my descent back to Maud Ingelric, the supposed concubine of William the Conqueror, who married a Normam Knight, Ranulph Peverel. it was the lordly Peverels who later went west into Cornwall, where they eventually became minor gentry, and in some cases really quite poor
Using online genealogies I traced Ingelric and Co back to Roman senators, and a Nordic god of ice and fire
Complete bollocks of course, but great fun. The trouble is the end of the Roman Empire in the west severed nearly all family trees between 400-600AD. I suppose the only way you could provably trace descent from antiquity would be if you descended from Byzantine aristos who might then, in turn, be traceable back to Roman times?
So you're descended from a bunch of foreigners who arrived in small boats on Kent beaches against the wishes of the locals?
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
Westminster surely can block another referendum. Whether it would be politically wise to do so is another matter.
International law has nothing to say on the point.
Except in the UN Charter and the ICCPR...
Neither of which will assist. If, for example, Spain chooses to prevent either the Basque country or Catalonia from seceding, or France prevents Corsica from doing so, there is no legal recourse available to those who wish to secede. It all comes down to realpolitik. Are the costs of preventing secession greater than the costs of allowing it?
And realpolitik has already told in some of our dealings with our former colonies.
For example, if China had been like Spain (a democracy of lesser power than our own) then Hong Kong would today probably have a status similar to Gibraltar.
And Beijing of course literally sent in the troops to crush Hong Kong separatists and anti China activists
I'm not surprised that the Rowe vs Wade reversal is helping the Democrats. The only cohort it serves are religious Republicans. Many Republicans will be repulsed by this.
For pro lifers however it doesn't matter.
Having the first Supreme Court majority to reverse Roe v Wade and return abortion to the states is far more important for them than a GOP Congress. Indeed even if Congress and Biden passed a law making abortion on demand legal again nationwide, this SC would rule it unconstitutional. It would take a near impossible 2/3 majority of both Chambers of Congress and 3/4 of all States to pass a constitutional amendment for nationwide legal abortion.
Ironically Trump's greatest legacy will be for the pro life cause in America, even if he has now screwed the GOP in the midterms through his SC judge appointments
This is is pure John Rawls isn't it. Rawls argued that religion has no place in the public square whereas his detractors argue that religious individuals/groups are unfairly expected to, in effect, split their identities in public discourse.
Seems strange to us that checks and balances in the US are so strong that an incoming president would lack the ability to enact our equivalent of a manifesto promise.
As usual, HYUFD is being hysterical and wrong. It is a fundameental right of any people to determine who they are ruled by - enshrined in international law. While Westminster can try to lay down the rules for conducting and respecting a referendum, it can not block a referendum altogether. If it insists on obstructing a referendum, then the SG can call an election - with Independence being categoricaly stated on parties manifestos. If SNP & SGreeen & Alba >50% in that contect then it is not neccesary to hold a separate Sindy referendum. This would be the peoples mandate.
Remind me how that worked out in Catalonia?
Yes, history is full of awkward cases - Crimea is another one, further complicated by population movements over decades and ethnic cleansing, and Israel and the occupied territories raise other issues. Quebec is another case, where voluntary imgration seems to be undermining the case for independence. But the basic principle is still right that a settled wish of a majority of the population to be in country X rather than country Y should take precedence over where the current boundary happens to be for one or another historical reason.
In Scotland, my impression is that the balance of opinion has turned against independence, but of course one can't predict these things with any security.
I'm not surprised that the Rowe vs Wade reversal is helping the Democrats. The only cohort it serves are religious Republicans. Many Republicans will be repulsed by this.
Don’t normally mention typos but this one is persistent and looks like an actual error (not a typo)
It’s Roe. Not “Rowe”
Is it really worth starting a row over the spelling?
Former Armed Forces minister Lord Andrew Robathan shared his outrage at the decreasing size of the UK military in the wake of the raging war in Ukraine.
GB News presenter Nigel Farage probed Lord Robathan on why the Conservatives have continued to cut the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget since 2010.
Lord Robathan acknowledged that "changes need to happen" but condemned the Government for "whittling the army, navy and airforce" down to dangerous levels, stating how the country is now in a "ridiculous situation".
Utterly disgusting; hugely against the national interest.
Isn't it all an inevitable result of our decades long trade deficit, that we keep on selling off assets in order to balance the books?
No. We are perfectly free to impose what restrictions we like.
It is also questionable where our trade deficit is as it is still all rebalancing.
Kwasi Kwarteng is being a fool. Letting a Eurofighter supplier come under US control will put participation in future programmes at risk.
He's also approved the sale of a similarly big supplier, Ultra Electronics. That is being sold to a setup called Advent International who gave lots of assurances before previously buying Cobham, which assurances Amber Rudd dribbled all over Parliament back in about 2018. In reality Cobham was dismembered within 18 months.
Our defence industry is getting some export success, and Kwasi Kwarteng pisses it away. He needs to be hit over the head 100 times with a (metaphorical) cluebat with "strategic autonomy" picked out on it in 6" nails.
The US threatened to withhold defence cooperation if we didn't, so he might not have had much choice.
I'd say that would be the point to lay down some ground rules, rather than be a doormat.
I'm not surprised that the Rowe vs Wade reversal is helping the Democrats. The only cohort it serves are religious Republicans. Many Republicans will be repulsed by this.
Don’t normally mention typos but this one is persistent and looks like an actual error (not a typo)
I'm not surprised that the Rowe vs Wade reversal is helping the Democrats. The only cohort it serves are religious Republicans. Many Republicans will be repulsed by this.
For pro lifers however it doesn't matter.
Having the first Supreme Court majority to reverse Roe v Wade and return abortion to the states is far more important for them than a GOP Congress. Indeed even if Congress and Biden passed a law making abortion on demand legal again nationwide, this SC would rule it unconstitutional. It would take a near impossible 2/3 majority of both Chambers of Congress and 3/4 of all States to pass a constitutional amendment for nationwide legal abortion.
Ironically Trump's greatest legacy will be for the pro life cause in America, even if he has now screwed the GOP in the midterms through his SC judge appointments
This is is pure John Rawls isn't it. Rawls argued that religion has no place in the public square whereas his detractors argue that religious individuals/groups are unfairly expected to, in effect, split their identities in public discourse.
Seems strange to us that checks and balances in the US are so strong that an incoming president would lack the ability to enact our equivalent of a manifesto promise.
That is the basis of the balance of powers in the US between President, Congress, the SC and the States.
In the UK however a PM with a majority in the Commons is an elected dictator and the Lords and Monarch and the courts ultimately have to agree to that PM's demands and the laws he proposes and passes through the Commons
I'm not surprised that the Rowe vs Wade reversal is helping the Democrats. The only cohort it serves are religious Republicans. Many Republicans will be repulsed by this.
Don’t normally mention typos but this one is persistent and looks like an actual error (not a typo)
It’s Roe. Not “Rowe”
Is it really worth starting a row over the spelling?
Leon is right, I'm a stickler for this sort a thing and am currently bashing myself about the head.
Comments
54% of English Tory voters and 62% of English LDs outright oppose Scottish independence even if only 42% of English Labour voters outright oppose it
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/09/07/how-do-english-and-welsh-people-feel-about-scotlan
I saw the chat last night on the current covid state, so I, inevitably, have decided to put in my semi-informed two penn’orth. Which is: we’re in the third Omicron wave. Around one in thirty of us have covid right now (up from a low of one in seventy). For some, it’s a summer cold. For others, it’s a nasty flu. For a few, it’s severe enough for hospitalisation, even with the immunity levels we’ve got.
This is the end state as it stands. You will catch covid an average of 1-4 times per year. All of us will. Some will be lucky and miss a year or two; others will be unlucky and catch it at every wave. And reinfections aren't necessarily less nasty than the previous infection.
I’ve had real ‘flu maybe three or four times in my life (rather than a bad cold). That’s a bit under once per decade, and I think that’s pretty representative. You probably get just under one real case of flu per decade.
You will catch covid 10-40 times over the next decade, unless something changes. So will each of your loved ones.
There is also the question of what proportion of hospitalisations are FOR rather than WITH covid. We don’t need to speculate, the figures are published. It’s about 36% right now (up from 30% at the low). But it’s still WAY below the 70-80% in the pre-Omicron and pre-vaccine days. Don’t get me wrong, those with incidental covid are not irrelevant. You still have to isolate them, it causes complexities in treatment, and worsens prognoses (there are no cases where “Oh, and you’ve got covid as well,” is a positive phrase to hear if you’re hospitalised and vulnerable due to something else). But it’s still qualitatively different from “You’ve caught covid so bad you’ve been rushed to hospital due to covid itself.”
And, yes, we still have a baseline of about 50 people per day dying FROM covid, who would have lived otherwise.
We will have between 1 million and 5 million people in the UK with covid; it’ll vary as the waves come and go. These are hitting fairly regularly – we had the original Omicron wave in December/January, the BA.2 wave in March/April, and now the BA.4/5 wave in June/July.
(Which implies that February and May were good months, and maybe August will be as well).
It's basically Scottish.
We will have 500-2000 hospital admissions per day with covid, of which 150-800 will be directly due to covid. We will have 3,000 to 20,000 people in hospital with covid at any time, of whom 1,000 to 8,000 will be due to covid (for context, we have capacity for around 100,000 in general and acute care and typically run between 70% and 95% loaded; this is an extra loading varying between 1% and 8%). This will have knock-on effects to all other areas of hospital care, from ambulance delays to delays in operations for other things. This is unavoidable, without a major increase to capacity. And 20-100 people will die due to covid (not just with covid) every day.
And on the Long Covid front – it’s certainly a reality, for many people, although the difficulty in reliably diagnosing what is due to covid and what is not is an issue. I personally suspect that while it very much exists and detracts from the lives of many people (in some cases hugely so), it’s not as prevalent as some assessments. However, it is also reduced (although not eliminated) by vaccines. It took 12 million infections to get to 1 million reported cases with ongoing symptoms; following vaccines, it took 40 million infections to get another 1 million such cases.
This is living with covid. As with the virus that caused Spanish Influenza, it will not ever go away again. Not fully.
Is that depressing? Or is it a relief that we’re able to get on with life regardless? Doesn’t matter. Reality doesn’t care if it’s depressing or a relief; it’s what’s looking to happen regardless of our feelings.
It is not, however, a justification for systematic NPIs. Even if we’re starting to think: “hang on, isn’t this getting a bit out of hand again?”
From everything I’ve read, NPIs (unless they are permanent) don’t do much to help when a disease is endemic. The infections you put off from one mini-wave come to bite you in the next one – and population immunity levels are lower (as fewer were infected “last time”), so it is, if anything, worse.
It's not as if Meggitt is being sold to Russia.
And there is no way we’re imposing restrictions or even masking on a permanent basis, let’s face it. The only NPIs that could be permanent without such disruption are things like HEPA filters/far UV treatment. These are very promising, and show decreases of 50% or so in infection rates, which is brilliant. I mean, if we’d had those, then merely banning large gatherings might have got us pretty close to the same R-reduction rate as full lockdown did. Frankly, I thought lockdown was really shit, and I’d swap them in a heartbeat.
“But how do we pay for them?” As with many other interventions, the reduction in lost productivity and disruption by the considerable reduction in infections would exceed the cost of installation, let alone maintenance, running, and replacement. And they’d put us in a far better place to start from the next time we have a respiratory pandemic (because we know this isn’t a unique event. We were lucky before in the amount of time between major pandemics. Let’s not count on luck going forwards).
No, temporary NPIs, including all restrictions and lockdowns, are merely to buy time for a better solution. That’s what they did last time, and that’s their use-case. It’s not a use-case for endemic situations.
However, if you are more vulnerable than most, you can reduce your risk by a big chunk simply by staying extra-cautious during the times of greater risk – at the crests of the waves. When prevalence in England is above 3-4%, it could well be worth using an FFP3 mask and avoid crowded inside places (although some people seem to want to judge anyone who does just that – without walking a mile in their shoes). And if you aren’t vulnerable but are going to visit someone who is, then at the peak (like now and for a couple more weeks), it’s worth using a test if you’ve got some stashed away.
Yes, if everyone did this, we’d have that issue above on reducing population immunity, but on the individual level, it makes sense to let someone else take the load of the population-immunity-through-infection if you’re more vulnerable than most. Yes, it’s a pain to reduce activities regularly – but these are always transient periods, and if you reduce your personal incidence by a factor of two or three, you’ll have to fight it off far less often. Especially if you take a regular booster shot.
Improved immunity IS useful, though. Even the original type vaccines can reboost waning immunity.
And the bivalent boosters recently developed increase antibody titres against Omicron to similar to the original formulation’s level against Delta. That’s a very significant change, and could reduce the endemic level (the tidal level of infection) considerably. Instead of 10-40 infections per decade, maybe 3-10? Less? Reducing the impact on the health system by a similar level?
Would they actually reduce infections like that?
What about: "I thought the vaccines don’t stop you getting Omicron. Or covid at all."
Have you seen the levels of infection and speed of rise? We’ve got an Rt of maybe 1.4. With a virus five to ten times as infectious as original strain covid (which was about 2.4 to 3.0). That means it “should” be somewhere in the 12-30 range. With exponential growth, multiplying by 12 every cycle rather than 1.4 means the ONS prevalence levels should go up within a couple of weeks until it’s a vertical line and the spreadsheet simply says “everyone.”
So, no, it doesn’t stop it dead. It’s not a suit of armour. But it does bounce off quite a bit. If it takes five attempts to get through, down from twenty, it’s reduced your infection level by a lot. People use the seatbelt analogy, and it’s a good one. Seat belts and airbags don’t stop you from dying in a car crash. But they reduce the rate a long way.
“But what about the cost and disruption of rolling them out?”
What disruption? It wouldn’t be the desperate “get jabs in arms NOW so we can release NPIs” of 2021. It’d be more like the winter flu jab regime.
And cost-wise: well you blow past the price of a jab within five minutes of presenting to hospital. And if it saves one day off work per year, you’ve more than made up the difference, haven’t you?
Zero covid? Yeah, people still talk about that, but it’s not happening. It would need simultaneous eradication of covid worldwide, and we can’t do that with vaccines, so we’d need a worldwide lockdown at China levels with perfect adherence. No, that’s never happening. It’s here, we’re living with it; we merely have to select how we live with it.
Caution for the most vulnerable, regular boosters, reformulating for the latest strain (and here, the fact that covid seems to be stuck on the Omicron branch of the evolutionary tree is very helpful), HEPA filters, and possibly an increase in hospital capacity make the difference.
My point was about the historical background to the psychological quirks of the likes of HYUFD. He doesn't like Scotland, has he ever been there? Why does he care?
And they were just looking for Pence to shake his hand, no doubt ?
What do you think they were there for? Cheese and wine?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law
It doesn't need to be a violent to be a coip attempt.
Impressive.
https://erictopol.substack.com/p/the-ba5-story
The virus seems to have some way to go in exploring its immune space in the human population.
It seemed to me that Lord Reed went well beyond what was necessary for the particular case to spell out the process in detail and the various safeguards built into the Scotland Act. Specifically in this case the first step is getting the Law Officers in Scotland to confirm that the bill is compatible; secondly the chair of the Parliament doing likewise (although failure to get this does not stop the bill outright) and thirdly the right to refer the Bill when passed to the SC for a ruling.
It remains to be seen if Sturgeon is able to short circuit this. It is entirely possible that the SC will decline to consider the bill until the other stages have been complied with. Even if they do they will follow the reasoning set out in the earlier case which makes it clear that Holyrood cannot pass legislation which impinges in any respect on reserved matters. This path is a dead end and Sturgeon must know it.
Her alternative of an election is much more complicated because in theory elections are about many things and are influenced by many factors. In a multiparty election nuances between parties can make the answer less than clear cut. Parties may want to take issue with the SNP's incompetence in building ferries, running schools and hospitals granting guarantees, and the disappointingly dry event that took place in the local brewery.
Tsar Nicholas II basically Russian
Etc
Back in the ‘80s, there were stories of BA being asked by the government to delay the handover of some of their new Boeing 747 aircraft, because a few $200m line items in the wrong month could make quite the difference to the BoP number.
Yes, as well as the additional capacity that "living with covid" mandates for all parts of the healthcare system, from pharmacy, to GPs, to Emergency Depts, to hospital beds and to ventilation, we have to factor in a higher staff absence rate due to sickness. Most healthcare is a team effort, and if one member of the team goes ill, the whole team goes down. No anaesthetist and the whole rest of the team is idle.
I think "living with covid" requires a cross the board increase in health care capacity of the order of 10%, as well as the need for passive NPI such as improvements to ventilation and filtering.
Masks for all staff in all areas of my hospital were made compulsory again yesterday at 1700 due to the scale of staff and ward outbreaks.
@nytimes recap.
It implies that her new counsel (prior one came from Trumpworld) told her she had to (finally?) tell the truth.
And then J6 decided they'd better get her to testify in public quickly before someone else convinced her not to
https://mobile.twitter.com/petersagal/status/1541963088836136962
It is also questionable where our trade deficit is as it is still all rebalancing.
Kwasi Kwarteng is being a fool. Letting a Eurofighter supplier come under US control will put participation in future programmes at risk.
He's also approved the sale of a similarly big supplier, Ultra Electronics. That is being sold to a setup called Advent International who gave lots of assurances before previously buying Cobham, which assurances Amber Rudd dribbled all over Parliament back in about 2018. In reality Cobham was dismembered within 18 months.
The same is already slated to happen to Ultra Electronics, who are a big supplier to the UK submarine programme.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/27/break-up-nuclear-sub-contractor-start-within-months-us-takeover/
Our defence industry is getting some export success, and Kwasi Kwarteng pisses it away. He needs to be hit over the head 100 times with a (metaphorical) cluebat with "strategic autonomy" picked out on it in 6" nails.
Pretty much everyone that I know seems to think that Scottish self determination is for Scots to decide.
Can't remember who said it yesterday, but I think it's exactly right that Sturgeon has played a weak hand very well.
International law has nothing to say on the point.
You look at what the aim was, and whether actions were taken to achieve that aim, and was stoking a violent mob part of that even if it was not wholly controllable. It was.
'It failed and wasn't well planned and involved chaotic elements' is not a persuasive counter argument.
The idea that Scots will vote a majority for, in due course, a hard border at Berwick and Gretna, pretending to be anti-nuclear while remaining in NATO (Scots have pride), losing the pound and the BoE, and losing English cash is nearly as fanciful.
So although the debate and discussion will be great, not least for the excellent and regular posts from the charming and insightful supporters of the SNP/the nationalist project here, the entire trompe l'oeil is a valiant and successful attempt to keep the Scottish political process in the hands of the SNP and a multitude of jobs for the boys, and girls, in Edinburgh and Westminster.
London Bridge is indeed an issue, so that is an intelligent observation you make. But, now you mention it, the issue of Crown interference in politics is now much more salient, especially in Scotland, where George VII to be has been publicly caught out, and this has been confirmed in the recent stuff from the National Archives. Rather unwise of the opposition Unionist parties in Holyrood to keep going on andf on about it and forcing the SG to come clean.
Someone who 80% of the scottish population hates...
Which is like expecting Cameron to mount a spirited defence of the EU.
I agree the Scots have the right to self-determination. But we should let them know that it's not just the Brexiteers who would be sorry to see them go.
I'm not in the slightest bothered about the SNP. They have a right to put forth policy and concentrate on one thing at a time. I know little about the machinations in Scotland. I'm merely giving you the impressions I've gained from the scraps of information I do see.
Possibly it's similar to those, like me, who don't concentrate on Scottish politics. Let us be honest. On here we're dealing with political geekdom. Most voters cast their vote on ephemeral impressions unless they're directly concerned.
I enjoy your manufactured spleen and wish you well. It all adds to the mix this site provides.
How many rightwing Tories do you know who voted for Boris in 2019? The majority of Tory voters as that poll shows are outright opposed to Scottish independence and this Tory government will refuse to allow an official indyref2
And she wasn't puishing indyref2 particularly hard. Not like next time.
Planning for a post referendum Scotland whatever the result ?
But history being what it is some lines matter a little more than others. The fact that HM the Queen is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (assuming the ducks and drakes of history are all telling the truth) matters more than that she is a collateral descendent of Geoffrey Chaucer's wife, though much history turns on that remarkable relationship.
I remember Charles Moore alleging in the Spectator once that HM the Queen was a direct descendent of the Prophet through Pedro the Cruel. It would add to the lustre as far as I am concerned it that were the case.
A massive reward of honour awaits anyone who could prove reliably the descent of HM the Queen from antiquity (pre c500 AD). Astonishingly it can't be done for her, or anyone else in the west. if it could, it certainly would not be English/British.
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon from a Scottish aristocratic family.
A lot of Labour voters (and members) are pro-indy, though the pool has partly dried up by loss to the SNP and Greens, and the proportion isn't as high as it was - which means they are competing with the Tories more than before. That is one issue.
Another is what happens at Westminster. SKS may take a view in return for coalition or c&s from the SNP, depending on the electoral maths. It may be one that Slab don't like.
Another is that Slab are not a separate party in the sense of the others. SKS or Ms Formby are the organ grinders and can yank the chain whenever they wish. So although Slab sees Scotland as its birthright, they can't split and form a separate party without having to start again with initially zero assets.
For example, if China had been like Spain (a democracy of lesser power than our own) then Hong Kong would today probably have a status similar to Gibraltar.
In any case, the Tories in Scotland made Tory politics and elections a single issue Stop Indyref matter for years under Ms Davidson, until just before the 2019 election when the paperwork started being a bit more "Scottish Conservatives" rather than RUTHSAYSNOTOINDYREF!!!!
What is more interesting is what is painted as a win by the SNP. Most seats, no doubt, will be said to demonstrate the will of the Scottish people for another independence vote. But that could be achieved on the back of 43% of total votes cast - lower than the YES vote of 2014.
Moving to a general election result from a referendum result allows the SNP to keep going even though the case for independence appears to be making little or no forward progress. Unsurprising, given that the SNP will not address the fundamentals of what a post-indy Scotland would look like.
On "real flu" vs "bad cold" how do you know it is three or four and not ten or more? We do not test for the difference between colds and flus, and surely a big lesson from covid is that the range of outcomes from such illnesses is very wide. Will there not be asymptomatic and mild flu and severe colds that overlap significantly in severity such that we cannot tell the difference without testing?
My very best wishes for a speedy recovery x
I, along with many others, have still not had covid (that I know of).
As to what we do - totally agree on air quality and its frankly a disgrace that government isn't doing a moonshot to do this in every hospital ward, care home and school classroom.
I also agree about treating people who choose to wear a mask with respect. You cannot know their reasons - they may well be clinically vulnerable but also wish to live their lives. It does cut both ways.
So - thanks for taking the time to lay that out.
Edit - Care home, not car home, which is of course a garage...
This is essential to hold together the alliance which consists of:
Those who want independence + EU
Those who want independence - EU
Those who want independence at any time so long as it is in the future
Those who think it is all nonsense but have to be in the SNP because they are the ANC of Scottish politics.
And anyway, the next leader, Kate Forbes, is only about 12 so the seat has to be kept warm for her for a couple of years.
I can see Scotland from my (English) road, believe the prospect of independence is approximately zero and propose to enjoy every minute of the constitutional pantomime.
Compared to the folically challenged, the privilege enjoyed by white working class males is enviable. They have their own newspapers, their sport is the national sport, politicians are falling over each other to represent their interests - not a day passes without some new salient opening up in the relentless War on Woke, for instance. Where is the War on Hair? Fucking nowhere to be seen.
Having the first Supreme Court majority to reverse Roe v Wade and return abortion to the states is far more important for them than a GOP Congress.
Indeed even if Congress and Biden passed a law making abortion on demand legal again nationwide, this SC would rule it unconstitutional. It would take a near impossible 2/3 majority of both Chambers of Congress and 3/4 of all States to pass a constitutional amendment for nationwide legal abortion.
Ironically Trump's greatest legacy will be for the pro life cause in America, even if he has now screwed the GOP in the midterms through his SC judge appointments
https://thesignsofthetimes.com.au/34/71119.htm
https://www.geni.com/people/Ranulph-de-Peverel-of-Hatfield/6000000002134874447
Using online genealogies I traced Ingelric and Co back to Roman senators, and a Nordic god of ice and fire
Complete bollocks of course, but great fun. The trouble is the end of the Roman Empire in the west severed nearly all family trees between 400-600AD. I suppose the only way you could provably trace descent from antiquity would be if you descended from Byzantine aristos who might then, in turn, be traceable back to Roman times?
It was Whataboutery.
I was wondering if you were just going to ghost us for a few days rather than trying to run interference.
It’s Roe. Not “Rowe”
Maybe by the next election Trump will be in prison and voters will have realised that it is they only who take charge of their destiny.
Seems strange to us that checks and balances in the US are so strong that an incoming president would lack the ability to enact our equivalent of a manifesto promise.
In Scotland, my impression is that the balance of opinion has turned against independence, but of course one can't predict these things with any security.
In the UK however a PM with a majority in the Commons is an elected dictator and the Lords and Monarch and the courts ultimately have to agree to that PM's demands and the laws he proposes and passes through the Commons