Here is a Secretary of State explicitly arguing that joining the Pacific trade bloc is a great move, not because it can fix the economic damage that the Tories have caused, but because it will tie the hands of an incoming Labour gov't trying to fix it. ~AA
I'm sure all on the Left were clutching their pearls when former Labour adviser Andrew Neather notoriously said hugely increased migration was a policy devised to 'rub the Right's nose in diversity' – that is, to change the UK's ethnic make-up as a taunt to Middle England.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/
That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
What an amazing amount of common sense all in one go.
A Tory relying on opinion polling as thr sole origin of legal mandate should hopefully be on the barricades trying to expel the current Westminster regime. Instead of tugging forelock before it.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
Quite, he and his ilk are dangerous subversives.
Also carefully forgets that Mrs T's criterion was a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish constituencies.
Your statement is incorrect. Mrs Thatcher's criterion was actually a simple majority of SNP MPs in UK constituencies. Then the SNP could pass the required legislation in Westminster.
Got a link to that are you ‘interpreting’? I personally doubt that Thatch was so gormless as to suggest that the SNP should stand in every English, Welsh and NI constituency.
Here is a Secretary of State explicitly arguing that joining the Pacific trade bloc is a great move, not because it can fix the economic damage that the Tories have caused, but because it will tie the hands of an incoming Labour gov't trying to fix it. ~AA
I'm sure all on the Left were clutching their pearls when former Labour adviser Andrew Neather notoriously said hugely increased migration was a policy devised to 'rub the Right's nose in diversity' – that is, to change the UK's ethnic make-up as a taunt to Middle England.
Oh no, they were giggling.
Until Brexit.
Thank god brexit put a stop to the migration.
Indeed by substituting Africans, Arabs and Asians makes the country more diverse.
Just told my wife that whilst our union was consensual, she does not have the power to leave as she is not oppressed (although I have restricted her freedom of movement and banned engagement with our neighbours). I’ve told her we can discuss this again in a generation ;-)
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/
That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
What an amazing amount of common sense all in one go.
You don't think voting a majority of independence supporting politicians at every election in last 8 years is not eth Scottish people saying it. When it is unionists only who decide what teh support is it means that above is just bollox, bit like saying all these people arriving in boats shoudl arrive in planes and will be welcomed no problem. If only it was democratic and as simple as that.
Here is a Secretary of State explicitly arguing that joining the Pacific trade bloc is a great move, not because it can fix the economic damage that the Tories have caused, but because it will tie the hands of an incoming Labour gov't trying to fix it. ~AA
Sorry Scott but that's rubbish. One remark about Labour wanting to re-enter the CU in an article about the CPTTP. I don't think it is clear how big the benefits of CPTTP would be to us and what strings are attached but if we aren't in the EU customs union what are we supposed to do? Just sit around without a trade policy?
Tl;dr, it's almost impossible to say which is the actual oldest pub, but it's definitely not the Trip or indeed many of the others whose main gimmick is their claim to longevity.
Amusingly, one of the genuine contenders is The New Inn in Gloucester.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
Best for Britain @BestForBritain · 1h Michael Gove in an ABSOLUTE PANIC about having made the initial introduction of that controversial Michelle Mone PPE contract. Worth watching the whole clip. Definitely more to this story.
Here is a Secretary of State explicitly arguing that joining the Pacific trade bloc is a great move, not because it can fix the economic damage that the Tories have caused, but because it will tie the hands of an incoming Labour gov't trying to fix it. ~AA
I'm sure all on the Left were clutching their pearls when former Labour adviser Andrew Neather notoriously said hugely increased migration was a policy devised to 'rub the Right's nose in diversity' – that is, to change the UK's ethnic make-up as a taunt to Middle England.
Oh no, they were giggling.
Until Brexit.
Thank god brexit put a stop to the migration.
Indeed by substituting Africans, Arabs and Asians makes the country more diverse.
Looking across that lineup - were the awards for people most helpful to Labour's polling position this year?
(I assume the Trusster and Kwasi were unable to make it)
ETA: Jemery Hunt is a lot taller than I'd realised, unless the rest are midgets. No idea who the giant next to him is. Actually, looking at that line up, Sunak's not as short as expected either, more or less May's height.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
On topic, the World Cup is causing problems in China.
They see the world isn’t locked down…
If iSAGE had had their way, that would be us too....
Perhaps China should have gone the North Korea of the past, where they simply reported they won all games by a massive margin and lifted the world cup...unfortunately no footage is available.
Best for Britain @BestForBritain · 1h Michael Gove in an ABSOLUTE PANIC about having made the initial introduction of that controversial Michelle Mone PPE contract. Worth watching the whole clip. Definitely more to this story.
'Yer carnt even wear a hauberk and crusader's surcoat without bein' arrested nowadays!'
It's funny, but I do think that sounds like bullshit. Getting triggered by medieval armour? There's been more modern depredations, but armour wielding knights was a bloody long time ago.
True, but in much of the arab world (and beyond) the term 'crusader' is a bit like 'jihadist' in the west. Neither understanding is correct, but there it is.
Just think of a certain football team not a million miles from the wet bit between Ireland and Britain, and how their fans play up sometimes, and the pearl-clutching on here when they do.
PS And I did once wonder how the locals reacted to the Crusader tank being sent out in WW2 to play a major role in the Western Desert (and to some extent Tunisian) campaigns.
There's a pub in Bath called The Saracen's Head, in these enlightened times adorned with a sign depicting a Saracen from Central Casting. I dread to think what was hanging up there in days of yore.
There's a pub in Pontefract that was called, until surprisingly recently, The Blackamoor.
Saw something recently on disquiet from the locals that the owners were changing the name of the pub from "The Black Boy"
Just told my wife that whilst our union was consensual, she does not have the power to leave as she is not oppressed (although I have restricted her freedom of movement and banned engagement with our neighbours). I’ve told her we can discuss this again in a generation ;-)
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
Quite, he and his ilk are dangerous subversives.
Also carefully forgets that Mrs T's criterion was a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish constituencies.
Not just Mrs T.
…
Indeed, "from time to time" but not "constantly". And it was reassessed just eight years ago.
The difficulty is, again, Cameron.
He established the principle that a Holyrood majority, won on a platform of holding a referendum, was a democratic mandate that should be respected by Westminster. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to change that principle.
Notably, the only precedent in terms of time between referendums is the seven-year period in the Good Friday Agreement between border polls.
It's a mistake to refuse another referendum. It will only make it harder to win when it does happen.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
Quite, he and his ilk are dangerous subversives.
Also carefully forgets that Mrs T's criterion was a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish constituencies.
Your statement is incorrect. Mrs Thatcher's criterion was actually a simple majority of SNP MPs in UK constituencies. Then the SNP could pass the required legislation in Westminster.
Got a link to that are you ‘interpreting’? I personally doubt that Thatch was so gormless as to suggest that the SNP should stand in every English, Welsh and NI constituency.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
Here is a Secretary of State explicitly arguing that joining the Pacific trade bloc is a great move, not because it can fix the economic damage that the Tories have caused, but because it will tie the hands of an incoming Labour gov't trying to fix it. ~AA
I'm sure all on the Left were clutching their pearls when former Labour adviser Andrew Neather notoriously said hugely increased migration was a policy devised to 'rub the Right's nose in diversity' – that is, to change the UK's ethnic make-up as a taunt to Middle England.
Oh no, they were giggling.
Until Brexit.
Thank god brexit put a stop to the migration.
Indeed by substituting Africans, Arabs and Asians makes the country more diverse.
Done wonders for Leicester, sure.
Saves a fortune in travel when every country comes to me!
On topic: what on earth is this 'new kind of association with the EU unlike anything we know today'? Sounds awfully like utter tosh.
Indeed, it covers everything from Associate membership of the EU to a bit of minor tinkering. The popularity of the option with Remainers mostly suggests something like cakism, SM but no FoM etc.
On topic: what on earth is this 'new kind of association with the EU unlike anything we know today'? Sounds awfully like utter tosh.
Indeed, it covers everything from Associate membership of the EU to a bit of minor tinkering. The popularity of the option with Remainers mostly suggests something like cakism, SM but no FoM etc.
Here is a Secretary of State explicitly arguing that joining the Pacific trade bloc is a great move, not because it can fix the economic damage that the Tories have caused, but because it will tie the hands of an incoming Labour gov't trying to fix it. ~AA
I'm sure all on the Left were clutching their pearls when former Labour adviser Andrew Neather notoriously said hugely increased migration was a policy devised to 'rub the Right's nose in diversity' – that is, to change the UK's ethnic make-up as a taunt to Middle England.
Oh no, they were giggling.
Until Brexit.
I doubt more than 1% of the Left have even ever heard of Neather but hey ho.
Given the topic, a remarkably balanced headline in the Mail:
Net immigration soars to record high of 504,000 in the year to June - equivalent to the population of Liverpool - driven by end of Covid, arrivals from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong and more students
On topic: what on earth is this 'new kind of association with the EU unlike anything we know today'? Sounds awfully like utter tosh.
Unsurprising too that this cakeist golden elephant option is proving so popular with the public, whose inability to hold views on UK-EU relations that are grounded in reality explains much of why we are in this mess.
"This explains another seismic shift since the 1990s: the young have moved dramatically Left-wards, and more of them voted for Corbyn when he lost disastrously in 2019 than for Blair when he won triumphantly in 1997. Boris Johnson compensated for this by hoovering up the pensioner vote, hence the triple lock and other gerontocratic policies. This process has run its course: there are too many angry under-50s.
The shortage of houses, their ridiculously high price and the collapse in home ownership among 20 and 30-somethings is the main economic force pushing the young Left-wards. Owning property is the key gateway to conservatism. Our deranged planning system, and the Tories’ refusal to allocate a lot more land – not just brownfield, but also greenfield – to housing is a betrayal of our younger generation. It is one reason for the decline in marriage and fertility rates, itself another blow to conservatism."
'Yer carnt even wear a hauberk and crusader's surcoat without bein' arrested nowadays!'
It's funny, but I do think that sounds like bullshit. Getting triggered by medieval armour? There's been more modern depredations, but armour wielding knights was a bloody long time ago.
Compare with European countries that have banned the Burka, perhaps?
Triggered by a headscarf.
The headscarf is a more nuanced argument though. I know plenty of muslim women claim to like wearing it, but in Iran right now there seems to be a bit of a revolt against it. In the west we see it as oppression of women's rights. I don't think dressing up in anachronistic costume is the same thing. Would they react the same to a Roman get up? Also involved in massive blood-letting and conquering in the middle east.
I'm not clear whether you mean ancient Roman or Eastern Roman Empire.
IMO both versions of Roman would be seen as historical artefacts / events, which have been conquered and are now extinct. And there not a challenge.
On the contrary Islam is about contemporary identity and background cultural narrative. Christianity is theoretically / theologically seen as something that has been superseded by Islam, and therefore something that looks like a symbolic reassertion is a different challenge. Iran still terms the USA, the dominant Western country and still one the most like Christendom, as The Great Satan.
On the hijab - in Iran I think the revolt is against a ruling elite, with the ritual rejection of hijab as a symbolic rejection of a symbol of the current order. IMO ordinary use of the hijab etc will simply reassert itself should it become voluntary.
There is also in the background that there is a significant amount of liberalising of popular values specifically in Iran, and also moving to less puritanical interpretations of Islam - the secularisation process. There are also not insignificant movements away from Islam to non-religious or other religions.
I'm not sure that in Europe hijab-banning is all about womens' rights. It is also about defending state philosophies from challenge, with womens' rights as the justifying narrative. Most clearly in France, with their secularist state philosophy.
Interesting to see the BoE essentially trash their own forecast today and suggest that it won't be as bad as they said just a few weeks ago. They've done a bang up job in helping talk the nation into a recession, maybe they've realised that and are beginning to row back the unnecessarily negative narrative.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
Quite, he and his ilk are dangerous subversives.
Also carefully forgets that Mrs T's criterion was a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish constituencies.
Your statement is incorrect. Mrs Thatcher's criterion was actually a simple majority of SNP MPs in UK constituencies. Then the SNP could pass the required legislation in Westminster.
Got a link to that are you ‘interpreting’? I personally doubt that Thatch was so gormless as to suggest that the SNP should stand in every English, Welsh and NI constituency.
Although tbf SNP support amongst younger voters in GB as a whole is actually higher than the Tories. So there's a thought.
Its a good job 500k people left the UK last year.....
The ONS figures showed that 1.1 million people came to live in the UK in the year to June 2022, an increase of 435,000 on the previous year. Separate Home Office figures showed that it had risen to 1.4 million people granted residence in the year to September.
Near me, there's a pub (the Old Ferry Boat Inn near St Ives) that has a woman's body buried beneath the floor, near the bar. The woman died nearly 1,000 years ago.
Allegedly.
And to reignite an old debate: some claim the inn to be the oldest inn in England. Innit?
That's an interesting thread, but does somewhat fall into the Trigger's Broom paradox. Is an Inn the building itself, the occupation on the site, or both? Does it need to be in continuous use? Is a building that was an inn, then a house that was largely rebuilt, then an inn, the oldest inn? At what point is a house new, or rebuilt? All the timber framing remaining? Just one timber? Foundations?
As a rather silly example: St Peter's at Bradwell in Essex was an early Anglo-Saxon church built on the site of a ruined Roman fort. In medieval times it became a barn, before becoming a church again 100 years ago. Is it the 'oldest' church if it was not a church for all that period?
Transcripts of emergency calls made to the French coastguard, seen by the BBC, suggest that desperate passengers were repeatedly told to call UK emergency services, despite being in French waters when they first requested help.
And a French police investigation, leaked to the newspaper Le Monde, appears to suggest that the French coastguard never sent help to the scene, despite a specific UK request to do so.
Individual bat viromes reveal the co-infection, spillover and emergence risk of potential zoonotic viruses https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 Bats are reservoir hosts for many zoonotic viruses. Despite this, relatively little is known about the diversity and abundance of viruses within bats at the level of individual animals, and hence the frequency of virus co-infection and inter-species transmission. Using an unbiased meta-transcriptomics approach we characterised the mammalian associated viruses present in 149 individual bats sampled from Yunnan province, China. This revealed a high frequency of virus co-infection and species spillover among the animals studied, with 12 viruses shared among different bat species, which in turn facilitates virus recombination and reassortment. Of note, we identified five viral species that are likely to be pathogenic to humans or livestock, including a novel recombinant SARS-like coronavirus that is closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, with only five amino acid differences between its receptor-binding domain sequence and that of the earliest sequences of SARS-CoV-2. Functional analysis predicts that this recombinant coronavirus can utilize the human ACE2 receptor such that it is likely to be of high zoonotic risk. Our study highlights the common occurrence of inter-species transmission and co-infection of bat viruses, as well as their implications for virus emergence.
On topic, the World Cup is causing problems in China.
They see the world isn’t locked down…
If iSAGE had had their way, that would be us too....
Perhaps China should have gone the North Korea of the past, where they simply reported they won all games by a massive margin and lifted the world cup...unfortunately no footage is available.
There are still shrill voices on twitter about covid. A lot of it seems to be from immune compromised people and I think they do face more challenges than the rest of the population, but I seriously wonder what they did before covid with regard to colds, flu, etc. I think some of them have been scared senseless, and rather than taking precautions themselves, they seem to think the rest of the population should stay masked forever. I'm all for increasing ventilation wherever possible, and if I was immune compromised I would avoid crowded, stuffy locations, but ultimately staying home to stay alive is no life. Covid is never going away.
Just in: the night before Thanksgiving, Twitter fired more software engineers effective immediately because their "code is not satisfactory" following the recent code review.
My first WC bet: Darwin Nunez (Uruguay) to be top goalscorer. 28/1. Just a hunch he could do well in the group games, and Uruguay should make it through to at least the next stage.
(No doubt there'll be a 3pm update: South Korea 4, Uruguay 0, Nunez red card).
'Yer carnt even wear a hauberk and crusader's surcoat without bein' arrested nowadays!'
It's funny, but I do think that sounds like bullshit. Getting triggered by medieval armour? There's been more modern depredations, but armour wielding knights was a bloody long time ago.
Hmmh.
Turkey - not really Arab lands. Syria/Edessa - something of a case although I don’t think that was particularly long lived Egypt - the Egyptians wouldn’t consider themselves Arabs, although Saladin was based there (albeit he was Kurdish)
Perhaps they are suggesting that Israel is an “Arab land”…
'Yer carnt even wear a hauberk and crusader's surcoat without bein' arrested nowadays!'
It's funny, but I do think that sounds like bullshit. Getting triggered by medieval armour? There's been more modern depredations, but armour wielding knights was a bloody long time ago.
Compare with European countries that have banned the Burka, perhaps?
Triggered by a headscarf.
The headscarf is a more nuanced argument though. I know plenty of muslim women claim to like wearing it, but in Iran right now there seems to be a bit of a revolt against it. In the west we see it as oppression of women's rights. I don't think dressing up in anachronistic costume is the same thing. Would they react the same to a Roman get up? Also involved in massive blood-letting and conquering in the middle east.
I'm not clear whether you mean ancient Roman or Eastern Roman Empire.
IMO both versions of Roman would be seen as historical artefacts / events, which have been conquered and are now extinct. And there not a challenge.
On the contrary Islam is about contemporary identity and background cultural narrative. Christianity is theoretically / theologically seen as something that has been superseded by Islam, and therefore something that looks like a symbolic reassertion is a different challenge. Iran still terms the USA, the dominant Western country and still one the most like Christendom, as The Great Satan.
On the hijab - in Iran I think the revolt is against a ruling elite, with the ritual rejection of hijab as a symbolic rejection of a symbol of the current order. IMO ordinary use of the hijab etc will simply reassert itself should it become voluntary.
There is also in the background that there is a significant amount of liberalising of popular values specifically in Iran, and also moving to less puritanical interpretations of Islam - the secularisation process. There are also not insignificant movements away from Islam to non-religious or other religions.
I'm not sure that in Europe hijab-banning is all about womens' rights. It is also about defending state philosophies from challenge, with womens' rights as the justifying narrative. Most clearly in France, with their secularist state philosophy.
The Roman thought is interesting.
Did not Mussolini (when he wasn't "on a lamp post at the corner of street"...) dream about a second new Roman Empire?
How does the symbology of Fascist chapters linked to Italian league clubs play into the Mussolini dream?
"This explains another seismic shift since the 1990s: the young have moved dramatically Left-wards, and more of them voted for Corbyn when he lost disastrously in 2019 than for Blair when he won triumphantly in 1997. Boris Johnson compensated for this by hoovering up the pensioner vote, hence the triple lock and other gerontocratic policies. This process has run its course: there are too many angry under-50s.
The shortage of houses, their ridiculously high price and the collapse in home ownership among 20 and 30-somethings is the main economic force pushing the young Left-wards. Owning property is the key gateway to conservatism. Our deranged planning system, and the Tories’ refusal to allocate a lot more land – not just brownfield, but also greenfield – to housing is a betrayal of our younger generation. It is one reason for the decline in marriage and fertility rates, itself another blow to conservatism."
The Tories led among all age cohorts aged 37+ in 2019.
The point about housing is a good one, though. Pretty well every constituency that has swung away from the Conservatives since 2010 has declining levels of home ownership.
On topic, the World Cup is causing problems in China.
They see the world isn’t locked down…
If iSAGE had had their way, that would be us too....
Perhaps China should have gone the North Korea of the past, where they simply reported they won all games by a massive margin and lifted the world cup...unfortunately no footage is available.
There are still shrill voices on twitter about covid. A lot of it seems to be from immune compromised people and I think they do face more challenges than the rest of the population, but I seriously wonder what they did before covid with regard to colds, flu, etc. I think some of them have been scared senseless, and rather than taking precautions themselves, they seem to think the rest of the population should stay masked forever. I'm all for increasing ventilation wherever possible, and if I was immune compromised I would avoid crowded, stuffy locations, but ultimately staying home to stay alive is no life. Covid is never going away.
My father is basically in this boat and unsurprisingly took it extremely seriously in 2020...total shielding, didn't meet with anybody for the whole year. But he then came to that exact conclusion, can't live the rest of my live like that. So he wisely avoids big crowds and stuffy locations, wears a "proper" mask when having to go inside with lots of people etc.
'Yer carnt even wear a hauberk and crusader's surcoat without bein' arrested nowadays!'
It's funny, but I do think that sounds like bullshit. Getting triggered by medieval armour? There's been more modern depredations, but armour wielding knights was a bloody long time ago.
Compare with European countries that have banned the Burka, perhaps?
Triggered by a headscarf.
The headscarf is a more nuanced argument though. I know plenty of muslim women claim to like wearing it, but in Iran right now there seems to be a bit of a revolt against it. In the west we see it as oppression of women's rights. I don't think dressing up in anachronistic costume is the same thing. Would they react the same to a Roman get up? Also involved in massive blood-letting and conquering in the middle east.
I'm not clear whether you mean ancient Roman or Eastern Roman Empire.
IMO both versions of Roman would be seen as historical artefacts / events, which have been conquered and are now extinct. And there not a challenge.
On the contrary Islam is about contemporary identity and background cultural narrative. Christianity is theoretically / theologically seen as something that has been superseded by Islam, and therefore something that looks like a symbolic reassertion is a different challenge. Iran still terms the USA, the dominant Western country and still one the most like Christendom, as The Great Satan.
On the hijab - in Iran I think the revolt is against a ruling elite, with the ritual rejection of hijab as a symbolic rejection of a symbol of the current order. IMO ordinary use of the hijab etc will simply reassert itself should it become voluntary.
There is also in the background that there is a significant amount of liberalising of popular values specifically in Iran, and also moving to less puritanical interpretations of Islam - the secularisation process. There are also not insignificant movements away from Islam to non-religious or other religions.
I'm not sure that in Europe hijab-banning is all about womens' rights. It is also about defending state philosophies from challenge, with womens' rights as the justifying narrative. Most clearly in France, with their secularist state philosophy.
Without going too deep, I was talking classical Roman, before the split, and the epic conquests of that era against the native populations (and defeats too - Mithridates etc). I am sure you know more than me on the subject but the removal of the headscarf is both a protest against the ruling elite but also against the instrument of oppression. In a global world, muslim women see how the rest of the world lives and generally I suspect would prefer not to be legally mandated to wear the headscarf. IIRC Iran was extremely westernised before the revolution (images from the time suggest so, but I guess can be misleading). I also accept that some of the banning of headscarves is not just about womens rights, but about anti-islamic sentiment too, but I do think its part of it.
Even in the tolerant UK, Nadia from bake-off has moved from completely covering her hair to a more relaxed approach in recent years. Thats up to her of course, and I am sure many muslim women are content to wear the hijab.
It is not only Sunak who needs to take account of it. Labours position on it is flawed too. Labour needs to embrace closer ties with the EU. Not going back in, but far closer ties.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
If you get a majority in the parliament that can call a referendum, you can call a referendum.
They have that you turnip headed cretinous half witted moron.
They have less than 10% of seats in that parliament, which last I checked is some way short of a majority.
You are a real cretin and I will waste no more breath replying to such mince.
Somewhat joking, but perhaps Sturgeon should set up an English National Party - same politics as the SNP, supportive of ending the Union, and contest all the English seats. Then they could form a coalition to end the Union. I'd probably vote for it.
Individual bat viromes reveal the co-infection, spillover and emergence risk of potential zoonotic viruses https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 Bats are reservoir hosts for many zoonotic viruses. Despite this, relatively little is known about the diversity and abundance of viruses within bats at the level of individual animals, and hence the frequency of virus co-infection and inter-species transmission. Using an unbiased meta-transcriptomics approach we characterised the mammalian associated viruses present in 149 individual bats sampled from Yunnan province, China. This revealed a high frequency of virus co-infection and species spillover among the animals studied, with 12 viruses shared among different bat species, which in turn facilitates virus recombination and reassortment. Of note, we identified five viral species that are likely to be pathogenic to humans or livestock, including a novel recombinant SARS-like coronavirus that is closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, with only five amino acid differences between its receptor-binding domain sequence and that of the earliest sequences of SARS-CoV-2. Functional analysis predicts that this recombinant coronavirus can utilize the human ACE2 receptor such that it is likely to be of high zoonotic risk. Our study highlights the common occurrence of inter-species transmission and co-infection of bat viruses, as well as their implications for virus emergence.
Jing Wang, Yuanfei Pan, Li-fen Yang, Wei-hong Yang, Chu-ming Luo, Juan Wang, Guo-peng Kuang, Wei-chen Wu, Qin-yu Gou, Gen-yang Xin, Bo Li, Huan-le Luo, Yao-qing Chen, Yue-long Shu, Deyin Guo, Zi-hou Gao, Guodong Liang, Jun Li, Edward C Holmes, Yun Feng, Mang Shi
Can any pupil point to any possible national bias in this paper?
"Of note, we identified five viral species that are likely to be pathogenic to humans or livestock, including a novel recombinant SARS-like coronavirus that is closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, with only five amino acid differences between its receptor-binding domain sequence and that of the earliest sequences of SARS-CoV-2. We transported these five viral species to our leaky, not fit for purpose, bioinsecure city centre laboratory for study and modification"
And btw
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].
My first WC bet: Darwin Nunez (Uruguay) to be top goalscorer. 28/1. Just a hunch he could do well in the group games, and Uruguay should make it through to at least the next stage.
(No doubt there'll be a 3pm update: South Korea 4, Uruguay 0, Nunez red card).
The Uruguay Ghana match should be a firey meeting after the 2010 World Cup meeting.
Betfair have *still* not settled GOP House majority. Patience really is a virtue sometimes when it comes to getting your money on these US politics markets.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
My first WC bet: Darwin Nunez (Uruguay) to be top goalscorer. 28/1. Just a hunch he could do well in the group games, and Uruguay should make it through to at least the next stage.
(No doubt there'll be a 3pm update: South Korea 4, Uruguay 0, Nunez red card).
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
If you get a majority in the parliament that can call a referendum, you can call a referendum.
They have that you turnip headed cretinous half witted moron.
They have less than 10% of seats in that parliament, which last I checked is some way short of a majority.
You are a real cretin and I will waste no more breath replying to such mince.
Somewhat joking, but perhaps Sturgeon should set up an English National Party - same politics as the SNP, supportive of ending the Union, and contest all the English seats. Then they could form a coalition to end the Union. I'd probably vote for it.
I am not convinced nowadays that she really wants to end the union, much better being Queen in Scotland and a useful idiot down south to blame for everything. If independence was won she would not last beyond the first election.
Individual bat viromes reveal the co-infection, spillover and emergence risk of potential zoonotic viruses https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 Bats are reservoir hosts for many zoonotic viruses. Despite this, relatively little is known about the diversity and abundance of viruses within bats at the level of individual animals, and hence the frequency of virus co-infection and inter-species transmission. Using an unbiased meta-transcriptomics approach we characterised the mammalian associated viruses present in 149 individual bats sampled from Yunnan province, China. This revealed a high frequency of virus co-infection and species spillover among the animals studied, with 12 viruses shared among different bat species, which in turn facilitates virus recombination and reassortment. Of note, we identified five viral species that are likely to be pathogenic to humans or livestock, including a novel recombinant SARS-like coronavirus that is closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, with only five amino acid differences between its receptor-binding domain sequence and that of the earliest sequences of SARS-CoV-2. Functional analysis predicts that this recombinant coronavirus can utilize the human ACE2 receptor such that it is likely to be of high zoonotic risk. Our study highlights the common occurrence of inter-species transmission and co-infection of bat viruses, as well as their implications for virus emergence.
Jing Wang, Yuanfei Pan, Li-fen Yang, Wei-hong Yang, Chu-ming Luo, Juan Wang, Guo-peng Kuang, Wei-chen Wu, Qin-yu Gou, Gen-yang Xin, Bo Li, Huan-le Luo, Yao-qing Chen, Yue-long Shu, Deyin Guo, Zi-hou Gao, Guodong Liang, Jun Li, Edward C Holmes, Yun Feng, Mang Shi
Can any pupil point to any possible national bias in this paper?
"Of note, we identified five viral species that are likely to be pathogenic to humans or livestock, including a novel recombinant SARS-like coronavirus that is closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, with only five amino acid differences between its receptor-binding domain sequence and that of the earliest sequences of SARS-CoV-2. We transported these five viral species to our leaky, not fit for purpose, bioinsecure city centre laboratory for study and modification"
And btw
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].
It means that it was published online before peer review - like most scientific papers in the last few years. And like most of any importance, it will be formally published after review.
If you'd taken any interest in the science of Covid over the last couple of years, you'd know this. It means that new research gets shared many months (or years) earlier than it would have done in the past.
An unexpected Brexit dividend is having Leave supporters rushing to find reasons why half a million net migration is actually totally fine.
If it happens every year it's not fine. That's a Birmingham worth of building and infrastructure required every two years. We can't even come close to sustaining that. But this is precisely why the government needs to be able to fully control immigration, so that we can choose to apply or remove restrictions when it suits us, not simply having a free-for-all with the entire EU.
Ultimately the test of whether we are doing better will be how migration changes over the long term. It doesn't need to be net zero, it does need to be at a level where we can keep up with the demand for resources.
Individual bat viromes reveal the co-infection, spillover and emergence risk of potential zoonotic viruses https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 Bats are reservoir hosts for many zoonotic viruses. Despite this, relatively little is known about the diversity and abundance of viruses within bats at the level of individual animals, and hence the frequency of virus co-infection and inter-species transmission. Using an unbiased meta-transcriptomics approach we characterised the mammalian associated viruses present in 149 individual bats sampled from Yunnan province, China. This revealed a high frequency of virus co-infection and species spillover among the animals studied, with 12 viruses shared among different bat species, which in turn facilitates virus recombination and reassortment. Of note, we identified five viral species that are likely to be pathogenic to humans or livestock, including a novel recombinant SARS-like coronavirus that is closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, with only five amino acid differences between its receptor-binding domain sequence and that of the earliest sequences of SARS-CoV-2. Functional analysis predicts that this recombinant coronavirus can utilize the human ACE2 receptor such that it is likely to be of high zoonotic risk. Our study highlights the common occurrence of inter-species transmission and co-infection of bat viruses, as well as their implications for virus emergence.
Jing Wang, Yuanfei Pan, Li-fen Yang, Wei-hong Yang, Chu-ming Luo, Juan Wang, Guo-peng Kuang, Wei-chen Wu, Qin-yu Gou, Gen-yang Xin, Bo Li, Huan-le Luo, Yao-qing Chen, Yue-long Shu, Deyin Guo, Zi-hou Gao, Guodong Liang, Jun Li, Edward C Holmes, Yun Feng, Mang Shi
Can any pupil point to any possible national bias in this paper?
"Of note, we identified five viral species that are likely to be pathogenic to humans or livestock, including a novel recombinant SARS-like coronavirus that is closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, with only five amino acid differences between its receptor-binding domain sequence and that of the earliest sequences of SARS-CoV-2. We transported these five viral species to our leaky, not fit for purpose, bioinsecure city centre laboratory for study and modification"
And btw
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].
It means that it was published online before peer review - like most scientific papers in the last few years. And like most of any importance, it will be formally published after review.
If you'd taken any interest in the science of Covid over the last couple of years, you'd know this. It means that new research gets shared many months (or years) earlier than it would have done in the past.
LOL sorry, that's a link to an explainer in the page I was copying from. I know what it means.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
If you get a majority in the parliament that can call a referendum, you can call a referendum.
They have that you turnip headed cretinous half witted moron.
They have less than 10% of seats in that parliament, which last I checked is some way short of a majority.
Well that is just daft. If everyone in Scotland voted SNP it still doesn't change that does it? You are setting an impossible ridiculous target unless you seriously think the SNP should stand and actually win English seats.
Individual bat viromes reveal the co-infection, spillover and emergence risk of potential zoonotic viruses https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 Bats are reservoir hosts for many zoonotic viruses. Despite this, relatively little is known about the diversity and abundance of viruses within bats at the level of individual animals, and hence the frequency of virus co-infection and inter-species transmission. Using an unbiased meta-transcriptomics approach we characterised the mammalian associated viruses present in 149 individual bats sampled from Yunnan province, China. This revealed a high frequency of virus co-infection and species spillover among the animals studied, with 12 viruses shared among different bat species, which in turn facilitates virus recombination and reassortment. Of note, we identified five viral species that are likely to be pathogenic to humans or livestock, including a novel recombinant SARS-like coronavirus that is closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, with only five amino acid differences between its receptor-binding domain sequence and that of the earliest sequences of SARS-CoV-2. Functional analysis predicts that this recombinant coronavirus can utilize the human ACE2 receptor such that it is likely to be of high zoonotic risk. Our study highlights the common occurrence of inter-species transmission and co-infection of bat viruses, as well as their implications for virus emergence.
Jing Wang, Yuanfei Pan, Li-fen Yang, Wei-hong Yang, Chu-ming Luo, Juan Wang, Guo-peng Kuang, Wei-chen Wu, Qin-yu Gou, Gen-yang Xin, Bo Li, Huan-le Luo, Yao-qing Chen, Yue-long Shu, Deyin Guo, Zi-hou Gao, Guodong Liang, Jun Li, Edward C Holmes, Yun Feng, Mang Shi
Can any pupil point to any possible national bias in this paper?
"Of note, we identified five viral species that are likely to be pathogenic to humans or livestock, including a novel recombinant SARS-like coronavirus that is closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, with only five amino acid differences between its receptor-binding domain sequence and that of the earliest sequences of SARS-CoV-2. We transported these five viral species to our leaky, not fit for purpose, bioinsecure city centre laboratory for study and modification"
And btw
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].
Some online journals allow you to put your results up for others to scrutinise and criticise. At its best its a good way to communicate early data and hopefully get reasonable criticism, that may improve the final paper. However its not something I would do. Peer review means a minimum of two academics in a related field have considered the manuscript and made recommendations (accept, accept with minor changes, major revision, reject etc). It can be annoying - not all referees get the point of your paper, some raise spurious issues, some demand certain papers get cited (almost always their own). Often it can help improve a paper.
What peer review is not, as is sometimes believed, is another academic proving a paper is correct. Ultimately that is replication where other researchers repeat the experiments. For instance I may need to synthesize a chemical someone else had made - I will follow their method and hope it works (normally in chemistry it does). In some fields there is currently a huge replication problem - a high percentage of published work cannot be replicated by other groups. More common in biology, psychology etc.
An unexpected Brexit dividend is having Leave supporters rushing to find reasons why half a million net migration is actually totally fine.
About 300000 of that is Hong Kong & Ukraine. Both of which were supported by most leave voters when announced: no post-hoc rationalisation required.
Anyway, these figures are fake news. I was reliably informed by remainers that no-one would want to move to Nasty Brexit Britain. So it can't be true.
I don't think that true. There were 85 000 Ukranian arrivals, though 170 000 visas issued to Ukranians, and 76 000 Hong Kong BNO arrivals.
Net 51 000 EU outward migrants, and 45 000 inward British migrants. There is some question as to whether some HK arrivals were counted as British migrants, or whether these were retired folk moving back from Malaga etc.
The 35 000 channel crossers aren't in the figures.
It would be nice to have accurate entry and exit logs, rather than passenger surveys.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
Quite, he and his ilk are dangerous subversives.
Also carefully forgets that Mrs T's criterion was a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish constituencies.
Your statement is incorrect. Mrs Thatcher's criterion was actually a simple majority of SNP MPs in UK constituencies. Then the SNP could pass the required legislation in Westminster.
Utter nonsense. Thatcher was accused of many things, but she wasn't a raving idiot and only a raving idiot would suggest such an impossible thing.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
If you get a majority in the parliament that can call a referendum, you can call a referendum.
They have that you turnip headed cretinous half witted moron.
They have less than 10% of seats in that parliament, which last I checked is some way short of a majority.
Well that is just daft. If everyone in Scotland voted SNP it still doesn't change that does it? You are setting an impossible ridiculous target unless you seriously think the SNP should stand and actually win English seats.
I do wonder about the negotiation of the details behind the Union; the impression that it was cooked up by a load of fatcat Scottish Parliament members in the New Club is strong. Instead of consolidating their monopoly over the ridiculous legal system and getting their Darien losses paid off why not press for a bilocated Parliament in London and Edinburgh?
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
If you get a majority in the parliament that can call a referendum, you can call a referendum.
They have that you turnip headed cretinous half witted moron.
They have less than 10% of seats in that parliament, which last I checked is some way short of a majority.
Well that is just daft. If everyone in Scotland voted SNP it still doesn't change that does it? You are setting an impossible ridiculous target unless you seriously think the SNP should stand and actually win English seats.
They could lobby for a UK-wide referendum on whether Scotland should remain part of the Union...
Betfair have *still* not settled GOP House majority. Patience really is a virtue sometimes when it comes to getting your money on these US politics markets.
Which is daft, given that we knew what the result was a fortnight ago.
An unexpected Brexit dividend is having Leave supporters rushing to find reasons why half a million net migration is actually totally fine.
If it happens every year it's not fine. That's a Birmingham worth of building and infrastructure required every two years. We can't even come close to sustaining that. But this is precisely why the government needs to be able to fully control immigration, so that we can choose to apply or remove restrictions when it suits us, not simply having a free-for-all with the entire EU.
Ultimately the test of whether we are doing better will be how migration changes over the long term. It doesn't need to be net zero, it does need to be at a level where we can keep up with the demand for resources.
Obviously extra people places more demand on resources, BUT Should the extra people not be also supplying the resources ?
An unexpected Brexit dividend is having Leave supporters rushing to find reasons why half a million net migration is actually totally fine.
About 300000 of that is Hong Kong & Ukraine. Both of which were supported by most leave voters when announced: no post-hoc rationalisation required.
Anyway, these figures are fake news. I was reliably informed by remainers that no-one would want to move to Nasty Brexit Britain. So it can't be true.
I don't think that true. There were 85 000 Ukranian arrivals, though 170 000 visas issued to Ukranians, and 76 000 Hong Kong BNO arrivals.
Net 51 000 EU outward migrants, and 45 000 inward British migrants. There is some question as to whether some HK arrivals were counted as British migrants, or whether these were retired folk moving back from Malaga etc.
The 35 000 channel crossers aren't in the figures.
It would be nice to have accurate entry and exit logs, rather than passenger surveys.
Thanks. Interesting. It would also be useful to know how many EU citizens with settled or pre-settled status returned: they were allowed to be abroad for up to 2 years, then come back and continue as they left off.
Individual bat viromes reveal the co-infection, spillover and emergence risk of potential zoonotic viruses https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 Bats are reservoir hosts for many zoonotic viruses. Despite this, relatively little is known about the diversity and abundance of viruses within bats at the level of individual animals, and hence the frequency of virus co-infection and inter-species transmission. Using an unbiased meta-transcriptomics approach we characterised the mammalian associated viruses present in 149 individual bats sampled from Yunnan province, China. This revealed a high frequency of virus co-infection and species spillover among the animals studied, with 12 viruses shared among different bat species, which in turn facilitates virus recombination and reassortment. Of note, we identified five viral species that are likely to be pathogenic to humans or livestock, including a novel recombinant SARS-like coronavirus that is closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, with only five amino acid differences between its receptor-binding domain sequence and that of the earliest sequences of SARS-CoV-2. Functional analysis predicts that this recombinant coronavirus can utilize the human ACE2 receptor such that it is likely to be of high zoonotic risk. Our study highlights the common occurrence of inter-species transmission and co-infection of bat viruses, as well as their implications for virus emergence.
Jing Wang, Yuanfei Pan, Li-fen Yang, Wei-hong Yang, Chu-ming Luo, Juan Wang, Guo-peng Kuang, Wei-chen Wu, Qin-yu Gou, Gen-yang Xin, Bo Li, Huan-le Luo, Yao-qing Chen, Yue-long Shu, Deyin Guo, Zi-hou Gao, Guodong Liang, Jun Li, Edward C Holmes, Yun Feng, Mang Shi
Can any pupil point to any possible national bias in this paper?
"Of note, we identified five viral species that are likely to be pathogenic to humans or livestock, including a novel recombinant SARS-like coronavirus that is closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, with only five amino acid differences between its receptor-binding domain sequence and that of the earliest sequences of SARS-CoV-2. We transported these five viral species to our leaky, not fit for purpose, bioinsecure city centre laboratory for study and modification"
And btw
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].
It means that it was published online before peer review - like most scientific papers in the last few years. And like most of any importance, it will be formally published after review.
If you'd taken any interest in the science of Covid over the last couple of years, you'd know this. It means that new research gets shared many months (or years) earlier than it would have done in the past.
Another co-author of that paper is the infamous Edward Holmes, who was also a co-author of the now-disgraced “Proximal Origins” article in Nature, a pivotal part of the initial cover-up
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
Quite, he and his ilk are dangerous subversives.
Also carefully forgets that Mrs T's criterion was a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish constituencies.
Your statement is incorrect. Mrs Thatcher's criterion was actually a simple majority of SNP MPs in UK constituencies. Then the SNP could pass the required legislation in Westminster.
Utter nonsense. Thatcher was accused of many things, but she wasn't a raving idiot and only a raving idiot would suggest such an impossible thing.
She is widely said to have said it, but no primary source. More convincingly,
"Leaving that aside for a moment though, what about the fundamental principle? Does Scotland in fact have a right to leave the Union?
In her 1993 memoirs The Downing Street Years Margaret Thatcher, Conservative prime minister from 1979 - 1990, appeared to accept that it did, writing:
"As a nation, [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure." "
Just in: the night before Thanksgiving, Twitter fired more software engineers effective immediately because their "code is not satisfactory" following the recent code review.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
If you get a majority in the parliament that can call a referendum, you can call a referendum.
They have that you turnip headed cretinous half witted moron.
They have less than 10% of seats in that parliament, which last I checked is some way short of a majority.
You are a real cretin and I will waste no more breath replying to such mince.
Somewhat joking, but perhaps Sturgeon should set up an English National Party - same politics as the SNP, supportive of ending the Union, and contest all the English seats. Then they could form a coalition to end the Union. I'd probably vote for it.
An interesting idea. We have had the pretence from the UKIPpers that they are interested in anything other than England. Now we have REFUK where I have no clue what reform they have in mind.
So yes, lets have a proper English National Party with a clear vision for an English parliament and England keeping its money and its resources. Its what quite a lot of people think, so I'm surprised that nobody has tried to scale such a movement.
So most voters don't want to be in the EU or the single market, even if a slightly closer trade and security partnership which Starmer would likely agree and Sunak might edge to
A friend points out that the SNP has now been backed into a position where its language is starkly nationalist in a way it often tried to avoid before: “trapped”, “prisoner”, etc. Big shift in tone that won’t necessarily chime with undecideds.…
Also “shackled”.
Also, the Sturgeon stuff about “as long as there is breath in my body” just sounded weird from a modern politician. All a bit “Scots wha hae”.
Backed into? It's done this to itself. Its only route - as Sturgeon used to acknowledge was to make the demand for independence, not another vote - overwhelming. As @dhothersall says, they have failed and been rumbled. There isn't a good case, certainly not now during a war.
Obviously extra people places more demand on resources, BUT Should the extra people not be also supplying the resources ?
To an extent many of them will, but 500k more people a year is a rate that would see us blow through previous population projections, and we aren't close to meeting current needs. So it is more complicated than looking at the raw numbers, but we'd need to be building at a level not seen since the post-war years to match growth in population like this, if it was sustained.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
Quite, he and his ilk are dangerous subversives.
Also carefully forgets that Mrs T's criterion was a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish constituencies.
Your statement is incorrect. Mrs Thatcher's criterion was actually a simple majority of SNP MPs in UK constituencies. Then the SNP could pass the required legislation in Westminster.
Utter nonsense. Thatcher was accused of many things, but she wasn't a raving idiot and only a raving idiot would suggest such an impossible thing.
She is widely said to have said it, but no primary source. More convincingly,
"Leaving that aside for a moment though, what about the fundamental principle? Does Scotland in fact have a right to leave the Union?
In her 1993 memoirs The Downing Street Years Margaret Thatcher, Conservative prime minister from 1979 - 1990, appeared to accept that it did, writing:
"As a nation, [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure." "
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
If you get a majority in the parliament that can call a referendum, you can call a referendum.
They have that you turnip headed cretinous half witted moron.
They have less than 10% of seats in that parliament, which last I checked is some way short of a majority.
Well that is just daft. If everyone in Scotland voted SNP it still doesn't change that does it? You are setting an impossible ridiculous target unless you seriously think the SNP should stand and actually win English seats.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
If you get a majority in the parliament that can call a referendum, you can call a referendum.
They have that you turnip headed cretinous half witted moron.
They have less than 10% of seats in that parliament, which last I checked is some way short of a majority.
You are a real cretin and I will waste no more breath replying to such mince.
Somewhat joking, but perhaps Sturgeon should set up an English National Party - same politics as the SNP, supportive of ending the Union, and contest all the English seats. Then they could form a coalition to end the Union. I'd probably vote for it.
An interesting idea. We have had the pretence from the UKIPpers that they are interested in anything other than England. Now we have REFUK where I have no clue what reform they have in mind.
So yes, lets have a proper English National Party with a clear vision for an English parliament and England keeping its money and its resources. Its what quite a lot of people think, so I'm surprised that nobody has tried to scale such a movement.
Trouble is the very name is so bound up in racism - the EDP etc. I genuinely think SNP politics, aside of independence chime with a lot of people.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
If you get a majority in the parliament that can call a referendum, you can call a referendum.
They have that you turnip headed cretinous half witted moron.
They have less than 10% of seats in that parliament, which last I checked is some way short of a majority.
Well that is just daft. If everyone in Scotland voted SNP it still doesn't change that does it? You are setting an impossible ridiculous target unless you seriously think the SNP should stand and actually win English seats.
They could lobby for a UK-wide referendum on whether Scotland should remain part of the Union...
They could and that is not irrational, but wasn't what Driver was saying.
Personally although I can see England and Wales has an interest it is much less so than the Scots (a bit like the abortion debate as to who has the greatest say, mother, unborn child, father).
I think there will be a large vote in England for it being up to the Scots to decide.
Obviously extra people places more demand on resources, BUT Should the extra people not be also supplying the resources ?
To an extent many of them will, but 500k more people a year is a rate that would see us blow through previous population projections, and we aren't close to meeting current needs. So it is more complicated than looking at the raw numbers, but we'd need to be building at a level not seen since the post-war years to match growth in population like this, if it was sustained.
I was half looking at new jobs if my current employer (No laughing at the back regarding my post count here) were to go belly up and one suitable role offered was by Avant so construction must be going ok.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
If you get a majority in the parliament that can call a referendum, you can call a referendum.
They have that you turnip headed cretinous half witted moron.
They have less than 10% of seats in that parliament, which last I checked is some way short of a majority.
Well that is just daft. If everyone in Scotland voted SNP it still doesn't change that does it? You are setting an impossible ridiculous target unless you seriously think the SNP should stand and actually win English seats.
I do wonder about the negotiation of the details behind the Union; the impression that it was cooked up by a load of fatcat Scottish Parliament members in the New Club is strong. Instead of consolidating their monopoly over the ridiculous legal system and getting their Darien losses paid off why not press for a bilocated Parliament in London and Edinburgh?
In reality Scotland paid of England's debts even 300 year's ago.
'Yer carnt even wear a hauberk and crusader's surcoat without bein' arrested nowadays!'
It's funny, but I do think that sounds like bullshit. Getting triggered by medieval armour? There's been more modern depredations, but armour wielding knights was a bloody long time ago.
Hmmh.
Turkey - not really Arab lands. Syria/Edessa - something of a case although I don’t think that was particularly long lived Egypt - the Egyptians wouldn’t consider themselves Arabs, although Saladin was based there (albeit he was Kurdish)
Perhaps they are suggesting that Israel is an “Arab land”…
"Arab lands" generally means "lands conquered and occupied by the Arabian Empire in the 7th and 8th centuries, so a) yes they do mean Israel, b) yes they also mean Egypt, and c) by the way, they also mean Spain.
Don't worry, it was the good kind of conquest, slaughter and occupation. Empires capturing territory via military force was totally fine until the British spoiled everything by getting really, really good at it.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
If you get a majority in the parliament that can call a referendum, you can call a referendum.
They have that you turnip headed cretinous half witted moron.
They have less than 10% of seats in that parliament, which last I checked is some way short of a majority.
Well that is just daft. If everyone in Scotland voted SNP it still doesn't change that does it? You are setting an impossible ridiculous target unless you seriously think the SNP should stand and actually win English seats.
They could lobby for a UK-wide referendum on whether Scotland should remain part of the Union...
Bit like asking China if Taiwan should be independent or asking Russia if Ukraine should be independent, great idea.
An unexpected Brexit dividend is having Leave supporters rushing to find reasons why half a million net migration is actually totally fine.
If it happens every year it's not fine. That's a Birmingham worth of building and infrastructure required every two years. We can't even come close to sustaining that. But this is precisely why the government needs to be able to fully control immigration, so that we can choose to apply or remove restrictions when it suits us, not simply having a free-for-all with the entire EU.
Ultimately the test of whether we are doing better will be how migration changes over the long term. It doesn't need to be net zero, it does need to be at a level where we can keep up with the demand for resources.
Obviously extra people places more demand on resources, BUT Should the extra people not be also supplying the resources ?
Not enough per capita growth for that with immigration.
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
If you get a majority in the parliament that can call a referendum, you can call a referendum.
They have that you turnip headed cretinous half witted moron.
They have less than 10% of seats in that parliament, which last I checked is some way short of a majority.
Well that is just daft. If everyone in Scotland voted SNP it still doesn't change that does it? You are setting an impossible ridiculous target unless you seriously think the SNP should stand and actually win English seats.
I do wonder about the negotiation of the details behind the Union; the impression that it was cooked up by a load of fatcat Scottish Parliament members in the New Club is strong. Instead of consolidating their monopoly over the ridiculous legal system and getting their Darien losses paid off why not press for a bilocated Parliament in London and Edinburgh?
In reality Scotland paid of England's debts even 300 year's ago.
'Yer carnt even wear a hauberk and crusader's surcoat without bein' arrested nowadays!'
It's funny, but I do think that sounds like bullshit. Getting triggered by medieval armour? There's been more modern depredations, but armour wielding knights was a bloody long time ago.
Compare with European countries that have banned the Burka, perhaps?
Triggered by a headscarf.
The headscarf is a more nuanced argument though. I know plenty of muslim women claim to like wearing it, but in Iran right now there seems to be a bit of a revolt against it. In the west we see it as oppression of women's rights. I don't think dressing up in anachronistic costume is the same thing. Would they react the same to a Roman get up? Also involved in massive blood-letting and conquering in the middle east.
I'm not clear whether you mean ancient Roman or Eastern Roman Empire.
IMO both versions of Roman would be seen as historical artefacts / events, which have been conquered and are now extinct. And there not a challenge.
On the contrary Islam is about contemporary identity and background cultural narrative. Christianity is theoretically / theologically seen as something that has been superseded by Islam, and therefore something that looks like a symbolic reassertion is a different challenge. Iran still terms the USA, the dominant Western country and still one the most like Christendom, as The Great Satan.
On the hijab - in Iran I think the revolt is against a ruling elite, with the ritual rejection of hijab as a symbolic rejection of a symbol of the current order. IMO ordinary use of the hijab etc will simply reassert itself should it become voluntary.
There is also in the background that there is a significant amount of liberalising of popular values specifically in Iran, and also moving to less puritanical interpretations of Islam - the secularisation process. There are also not insignificant movements away from Islam to non-religious or other religions.
I'm not sure that in Europe hijab-banning is all about womens' rights. It is also about defending state philosophies from challenge, with womens' rights as the justifying narrative. Most clearly in France, with their secularist state philosophy.
I am sure many muslim women are content to wear the hijab.
Yep, how many hijab wearers have “bad hair days”? It’s more complicated than some Westerners assume.
"This explains another seismic shift since the 1990s: the young have moved dramatically Left-wards, and more of them voted for Corbyn when he lost disastrously in 2019 than for Blair when he won triumphantly in 1997. Boris Johnson compensated for this by hoovering up the pensioner vote, hence the triple lock and other gerontocratic policies. This process has run its course: there are too many angry under-50s.
The shortage of houses, their ridiculously high price and the collapse in home ownership among 20 and 30-somethings is the main economic force pushing the young Left-wards. Owning property is the key gateway to conservatism. Our deranged planning system, and the Tories’ refusal to allocate a lot more land – not just brownfield, but also greenfield – to housing is a betrayal of our younger generation. It is one reason for the decline in marriage and fertility rates, itself another blow to conservatism."
The sad reality about this is the complete lack of joined-up thinking. So many people are against new homes being built because they are being thrown up in places where no new infrastructure is added - no new roads, shops, schools, doctors surgeries.
People are against these developments because they crowd everyone else. It is always someone else's fault that this happens - the developers, the councils, the government. Yet it keeps happening. There are few new town developments where infrastructure is added - the Hamptons in Peterborough being an example of one that has been thought through.
We can't just build more houses, we need to build all the things new houses need. And that means building houses on a plan not just crushed in. But the last big change to the law under the coalition gave open license to developers to build anywhere they liked. No wonder people are opposed.
I am an enthusiastic Remainer that doesn't want to rejoin. We left, the train has left the station. We had great terms, if we rejoin we won't. You told us it would be great. We are still anticipating this greatness .
Do I regret leaving as I wait in the border control queue at Bristol Airport? A queue that pre - Brexit I didn't need to join. Yes, but you told me it will be fantastic. I'm taking your word for it. Why should I demand we rejoin?
Why are you queuing at Bristol?
The only difference vs previously is that the UK has - rightly - extended the fast track to other low risk category countries such as the US, SKorea, Australia etc.
That’s a good thing - perhaps it slightly increases your waiting time but the average time in the airport will decline and proper scrutiny can be applied on a risk basis
As the dust starts to settle on the Supreme Court verdict, it’s incredibly important that Nationalist and Unionist alike understand there remains a lawful, constitutional and democratic path to independence for those who wish to pursue it 1/ That path is persuasion. Everyone understands & agrees that the decision-maker is the Scottish people. So, if you want indy, persuade them! When it is clearly and constantly the settled will of the Scottish people to have either indyref2 or independence itself, they’ll have it 2/
Yesterday’s ruling did nothing to change that. Ever since Margaret Thatcher was PM the UK state has been perfectly clear that it will not seek to obstruct the settled will of the Scottish people. Opinion polling will tell us what the people want 3/
If polls show clear and constant majority support for indyref2 or for indy itself, so be it. Nicola Sturgeon said this herself—get to 60% support for 6, 9, or 12 months and that’s settled will—and in those circumstances the UK state will not block what Scotland wants 4/
In that sense, and contrary to what Ms Sturgeon is now saying, the UK is and always has been a voluntary union. More so than Canada (whose Provinces cannot unilaterally secede). Much more so than the US (whose States cannot secede at all) 5/
Those opposed to independence should campaign for Scots to agree with them, that our true priorities are health, economy, schools, and hospitals, leaving the Nationalists to fixate on indy. That’s politics. It’s lawful, constitutional and democratic. That’s as it should be. /End
So, governance by opinion poll, not by the results of democratic elections.
If England were governed by the same principle the Tories would have been out on their arses long ago.
Quite, he and his ilk are dangerous subversives.
Also carefully forgets that Mrs T's criterion was a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish constituencies.
Your statement is incorrect. Mrs Thatcher's criterion was actually a simple majority of SNP MPs in UK constituencies. Then the SNP could pass the required legislation in Westminster.
Utter nonsense. Thatcher was accused of many things, but she wasn't a raving idiot and only a raving idiot would suggest such an impossible thing.
She is widely said to have said it, but no primary source. More convincingly,
"Leaving that aside for a moment though, what about the fundamental principle? Does Scotland in fact have a right to leave the Union?
In her 1993 memoirs The Downing Street Years Margaret Thatcher, Conservative prime minister from 1979 - 1990, appeared to accept that it did, writing:
"As a nation, [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure." "
Agree she is widely accepted to have referred to a majority of Scots or Scottish MPs NOT a majority of SNP MPs in the whole of the UK as claimed by this poster which is clearly bonkers. Nobody expects the SNP to win seats in say Guildford. It was a nutty assertion.
Comments
Tl;dr, it's almost impossible to say which is the actual oldest pub, but it's definitely not the Trip or indeed many of the others whose main gimmick is their claim to longevity.
Amusingly, one of the genuine contenders is The New Inn in Gloucester.
(I assume the Trusster and Kwasi were unable to make it)
ETA: Jemery Hunt is a lot taller than I'd realised, unless the rest are midgets. No idea who the giant next to him is. Actually, looking at that line up, Sunak's not as short as expected either, more or less May's height.
Perhaps China should have gone the North Korea of the past, where they simply reported they won all games by a massive margin and lifted the world cup...unfortunately no footage is available.
I think I still have half of Robin Hood's bow somewhere.
He established the principle that a Holyrood majority, won on a platform of holding a referendum, was a democratic mandate that should be respected by Westminster. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to change that principle.
Notably, the only precedent in terms of time between referendums is the seven-year period in the Good Friday Agreement between border polls.
It's a mistake to refuse another referendum. It will only make it harder to win when it does happen.
Net immigration soars to record high of 504,000 in the year to June - equivalent to the population of Liverpool - driven by end of Covid, arrivals from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong and more students
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11465245/Net-migration-hits-record-high-official-statistics-reveal.html
"This explains another seismic shift since the 1990s: the young have moved dramatically Left-wards, and more of them voted for Corbyn when he lost disastrously in 2019 than for Blair when he won triumphantly in 1997. Boris Johnson compensated for this by hoovering up the pensioner vote, hence the triple lock and other gerontocratic policies. This process has run its course: there are too many angry under-50s.
The shortage of houses, their ridiculously high price and the collapse in home ownership among 20 and 30-somethings is the main economic force pushing the young Left-wards. Owning property is the key gateway to conservatism. Our deranged planning system, and the Tories’ refusal to allocate a lot more land – not just brownfield, but also greenfield – to housing is a betrayal of our younger generation. It is one reason for the decline in marriage and fertility rates, itself another blow to conservatism."
"Should the United Kingdom strike a new kind of relationship with Europe that is unlike anything we know today or indeed have ever known?" YES/NO
None of your 52/48s it'd surely be a landslide for YES.
IMO both versions of Roman would be seen as historical artefacts / events, which have been conquered and are now extinct. And there not a challenge.
On the contrary Islam is about contemporary identity and background cultural narrative. Christianity is theoretically / theologically seen as something that has been superseded by Islam, and therefore something that looks like a symbolic reassertion is a different challenge. Iran still terms the USA, the dominant Western country and still one the most like Christendom, as The Great Satan.
On the hijab - in Iran I think the revolt is against a ruling elite, with the ritual rejection of hijab as a symbolic rejection of a symbol of the current order. IMO ordinary use of the hijab etc will simply reassert itself should it become voluntary.
There is also in the background that there is a significant amount of liberalising of popular values specifically in Iran, and also moving to less puritanical interpretations of Islam - the secularisation process. There are also not insignificant movements away from Islam to non-religious or other religions.
I'm not sure that in Europe hijab-banning is all about womens' rights. It is also about defending state philosophies from challenge, with womens' rights as the justifying narrative. Most clearly in France, with their secularist state philosophy.
The ONS figures showed that 1.1 million people came to live in the UK in the year to June 2022, an increase of 435,000 on the previous year. Separate Home Office figures showed that it had risen to 1.4 million people granted residence in the year to September.
As a rather silly example: St Peter's at Bradwell in Essex was an early Anglo-Saxon church built on the site of a ruined Roman fort. In medieval times it became a barn, before becoming a church again 100 years ago. Is it the 'oldest' church if it was not a church for all that period?
In the end, it all becomes rather arbitrary.
And a French police investigation, leaked to the newspaper Le Monde, appears to suggest that the French coastguard never sent help to the scene, despite a specific UK request to do so.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63728830
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1
Bats are reservoir hosts for many zoonotic viruses. Despite this, relatively little is known about the diversity and abundance of viruses within bats at the level of individual animals, and hence the frequency of virus co-infection and inter-species transmission. Using an unbiased meta-transcriptomics approach we characterised the mammalian associated viruses present in 149 individual bats sampled from Yunnan province, China. This revealed a high frequency of virus co-infection and species spillover among the animals studied, with 12 viruses shared among different bat species, which in turn facilitates virus recombination and reassortment. Of note, we identified five viral species that are likely to be pathogenic to humans or livestock, including a novel recombinant SARS-like coronavirus that is closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, with only five amino acid differences between its receptor-binding domain sequence and that of the earliest sequences of SARS-CoV-2. Functional analysis predicts that this recombinant coronavirus can utilize the human ACE2 receptor such that it is likely to be of high zoonotic risk. Our study highlights the common occurrence of inter-species transmission and co-infection of bat viruses, as well as their implications for virus emergence.
@RichardBurgon
This is the most corrupt government in modern British history.
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/1595732359034425345
When even Dickie gets the point...
Just in: the night before Thanksgiving, Twitter fired more software engineers effective immediately because their "code is not satisfactory" following the recent code review.
https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1595684664228052992
George Hotz is good, but he isn't 1000s of standard devs good.
Just a hunch he could do well in the group games, and Uruguay should make it through to at least the next stage.
(No doubt there'll be a 3pm update: South Korea 4, Uruguay 0, Nunez red card).
Turkey - not really Arab lands.
Syria/Edessa - something of a case although I don’t think that was particularly long lived
Egypt - the Egyptians wouldn’t consider themselves Arabs, although Saladin was based there (albeit he was Kurdish)
Perhaps they are suggesting that Israel is an “Arab land”…
Did not Mussolini (when he wasn't "on a lamp post at the corner of street"...) dream about a second new Roman Empire?
How does the symbology of Fascist chapters linked to Italian league clubs play into the Mussolini dream?
It won’t blow up the financial system, but it will be scary
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/10/20/a-global-house-price-slump-is-coming?
The point about housing is a good one, though. Pretty well every constituency that has swung away from the Conservatives since 2010 has declining levels of home ownership.
Anyway, these figures are fake news. I was reliably informed by remainers that no-one would want to move to Nasty Brexit Britain. So it can't be true.
Even in the tolerant UK, Nadia from bake-off has moved from completely covering her hair to a more relaxed approach in recent years. Thats up to her of course, and I am sure many muslim women are content to wear the hijab.
Can any pupil point to any possible national bias in this paper?
"Of note, we identified five viral species that are likely to be pathogenic to humans or livestock, including a novel recombinant SARS-like coronavirus that is closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV, with only five amino acid differences between its receptor-binding domain sequence and that of the earliest sequences of SARS-CoV-2. We transported these five viral species to our leaky, not fit for purpose, bioinsecure city centre laboratory for study and modification"
And btw
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].
And like most of any importance, it will be formally published after review.
If you'd taken any interest in the science of Covid over the last couple of years, you'd know this. It means that new research gets shared many months (or years) earlier than it would have done in the past.
Ultimately the test of whether we are doing better will be how migration changes over the long term. It doesn't need to be net zero, it does need to be at a level where we can keep up with the demand for resources.
What peer review is not, as is sometimes believed, is another academic proving a paper is correct. Ultimately that is replication where other researchers repeat the experiments. For instance I may need to synthesize a chemical someone else had made - I will follow their method and hope it works (normally in chemistry it does). In some fields there is currently a huge replication problem - a high percentage of published work cannot be replicated by other groups. More common in biology, psychology etc.
Net 51 000 EU outward migrants, and 45 000 inward British migrants. There is some question as to whether some HK arrivals were counted as British migrants, or whether these were retired folk moving back from Malaga etc.
The 35 000 channel crossers aren't in the figures.
It would be nice to have accurate entry and exit logs, rather than passenger surveys.
Should the extra people not be also supplying the resources ?
"Leaving that aside for a moment though, what about the fundamental principle? Does Scotland in fact have a right to leave the Union?
In her 1993 memoirs The Downing Street Years Margaret Thatcher, Conservative prime minister from 1979 - 1990, appeared to accept that it did, writing:
"As a nation, [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure." "
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-61987556
Somebody said that's like asking a mechanic to show you their 10 best screws...
So yes, lets have a proper English National Party with a clear vision for an English parliament and England keeping its money and its resources. Its what quite a lot of people think, so I'm surprised that nobody has tried to scale such a movement.
Also “shackled”.
Also, the Sturgeon stuff about “as long as there is breath in my body” just sounded weird from a modern politician. All a bit “Scots wha hae”.
https://twitter.com/kennyfarq/status/1595716473682534402
Backed into? It's done this to itself. Its only route - as Sturgeon used to acknowledge was to make the demand for independence, not another vote - overwhelming. As @dhothersall says, they have failed and been rumbled. There isn't a good case, certainly not now during a war.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1595720211097088000
The SC affirmed yesterday Westminster and Westminster alone is sovereign
Personally although I can see England and Wales has an interest it is much less so than the Scots (a bit like the abortion debate as to who has the greatest say, mother, unborn child, father).
I think there will be a large vote in England for it being up to the Scots to decide.
It's the latest blow to the government's claims to be securing post-Brexit freedoms
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-24/uk-officials-want-sunak-to-delay-bonfire-of-eu-laws-until-2026
Don't worry, it was the good kind of conquest, slaughter and occupation. Empires capturing territory via military force was totally fine until the British spoiled everything by getting really, really good at it.
People are against these developments because they crowd everyone else. It is always someone else's fault that this happens - the developers, the councils, the government. Yet it keeps happening. There are few new town developments where infrastructure is added - the Hamptons in Peterborough being an example of one that has been thought through.
We can't just build more houses, we need to build all the things new houses need. And that means building houses on a plan not just crushed in. But the last big change to the law under the coalition gave open license to developers to build anywhere they liked. No wonder people are opposed.
The only difference vs previously is that the UK has - rightly - extended the fast track to other low risk category countries such as the US, SKorea, Australia etc.
That’s a good thing - perhaps it slightly increases your waiting time but the average time in the airport will decline and proper scrutiny can be applied on a risk basis