I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post - although I think many of the values you identify as British are much more widely held than that across Europe and beyond. There are also a lot of parallels in what you say to how many people (though not the majority) feel about the UK and the EU. There is one key difference, though: the UK can rejoin the EU. Once the Union is broken, there is no going back. It is done. It will be a total failure of the Westminster system if it happens.
I don't think we can rejoin the EU.
If the UK prospers then, regardless of whether we might have prospered more within the EU, or the other positives that would come from membership, only the small minority with a European identity would be in favour.
If the UK struggles then to rejoin would be psychologically equivalent to surrender. We would be admitting that we couldn't cope as an independent country. I think a majority of the electorate would recoil from such a conclusion. Even if a majority did not the EU would be wise to reject our membership in that circumstance. We would forever resent our membership as proof of our weakness.
The chance for a positive UK membership of the EU would have been based on wanting to belong to a greater whole. Of choosing to be part of a joint endeavour, to be willing to pay a price to do so. But politicians on all sides did nothing to encourage that European identity. Their practice was to benefit in the short term by blaming Brussels for anything unpopular, and fostered an us and them dynamic.
Instead our membership was presented as involuntary. We had to remain because we were not capable of being independent. Who wants to sign up on those terms?
The same mistake is being made with the British Union. If you tell people they have no choice they will show you that they bloody well do have a choice.
The idea of 'world leading' this or that is a perverse way to present government policies. It is about time this came in for ridicule.
Moreover the idea that if a British company or laboratory found a cure or vaccine then we should automatically have first dibs at it, as is sometimes implied by press reports, is a bolshie attitude inappropriate to a global pandemic. We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.
I thought first dibs had already been agreed with AstraZeneca?
It has and why shouldn't it? If we're funding the research of course we should get it first if we're successful. We should share it with the globe but that doesn't mean waiting for 7 billion vaccines to be produced before we use it ourselves.
AstraZeneca is a British-Swedish multinational. It has contracts to supply vaccines to the NHS, to the USA and to the EU. All fine, and the US need for vaccine is huge atm, as it is in some EU countries including here. But no country is insulated from infection in other countries, so the global allocation/distribution of vaccines must be determined according to where their application has the greatest impact on the epidemic. The WHO would be the right vehicle to do that despite its many shortcomings.
No. Could not disagree more.
What will get this allocated/distributed globally is money. Cold hard cash. And absolutely those who have paid for the research, paid for the vaccine will and should get it first - and if they didn't there wouldn't be the research, there wouldn't be the vaccine and the whole world would be worse off.
The WHO will be the right vector for getting the virus vaccine to hard to reach third world nations like tackling Ebola - it isn't necessary to distribute it to the first world nations that can deal with companies directly.
Excellent post - although I think many of the values you identify as British are much more widely held than that across Europe and beyond. There are also a lot of parallels in what you say to how many people (though not the majority) feel about the UK and the EU. There is one key difference, though: the UK can rejoin the EU. Once the Union is broken, there is no going back. It is done. It will be a total failure of the Westminster system if it happens.
Yes, it will be ironic if Brexit prompts Scotland into making exactly the same kind of mistake as Brexit, based on exactly the same kind of wishful thinking and the same kind of disdain for economic and political realities, in pursuit of the same kind of illusory sovereignty.
Brexit and Scottish Independence are part of the the same political movement. Nostalgic nationalism.
I'm not sure nostalgia is the right word for Scottish Nationalism. Nobody was alive before Scotland was in the Union, and whilst I am not decrying Scotland's cultural achievements before Union (which were many), much of its real cultural and economical heyday took place after it - The Scottish Enlightenment, and the industrial revolution being two examples that spring to mind. It isn't looking back in fondness that drives the Indy movement as far as I can see, but looking back in anger.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
58% of English Tories and a huge 85% of Scottish Tories believe Boris should block indyref2, so as long as we have a Tory majority at Westminster indyref2 will be blocked.
If however the SNP win a majority next year and Starmer becomes PM in 2024 then indyref2 is possible as 54% of English Labour voters would allow indyref2, though Starmer would also align the UK back with the single market reducing the chances of a Yes vote anyway
58% of English Tories and a huge 85% of Scottish Tories believe Boris should block indyref2, so as long as we have a Tory majority at Westminster indyref2 will be blocked.
How many thought we should leave the EU with no deal rather than agree to a border in the Irish Sea?
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
This is a lot of verbiage to dress up your own narrow nationalism.
What weight do you expect anyone to attach to your opinion when you offer support to an even narrower nationalism, purely because you perceive a benefit in it (if only one of some sort of face-saving revenge) to the EU? Your posts lack even a veneer of intellectual coherence.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
This is a lot of verbiage to dress up your own narrow nationalism.
What weight do you expect anyone to attach to your opinion when you offer support to an even narrower nationalism, purely because you perceive a benefit in it (if only one of some sort of face-saving revenge) to the EU? Your posts lack even a veneer of intellectual coherence.
I think we should share the same currency as Ireland, France and Germany. How is that a narrower nationalism?
Most Scottish nationalism is driven by an inferiority complex and deep-seated resentment toward England. Therefore, any problems Scotland faces as an independent country (there will be many) will be blamed on England.
It won't end with Brexit.
Most British nationalism is driven by an inferiority complex and deep-seated resentment towards the EU. Therefore, any problems Britain faces as an independent country (there will be many) will be blamed on the EU.
Don't reveal the Tories 2024 election plan just yet. It's all Covid / the EU's fault can't be used too early.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post, David.
I'd go slightly more emotional than you: we all live on the same island and have a huge amount in common. Weather, landscapes, language (by and large), humour, families, history, heritage, and common institutions, like the monarchy, currency, NHS, BBC and armed forces.
I think it would be a tragedy to split. But, it's a battle I know is currently being lost.
If it's a battle being lost, it's because one side hasn't really started fighting it yet. That's both a little depressing, and heartening.
Identities can't be changed in a referendum campaign. They are created and reinforced over long periods of time.
The actions of supposedly Unionist politicians is acting to create Scottish national identity now - because they see how they benefit in the short term by playing up the divide between England and Scotland.
58% of English Tories and a huge 85% of Scottish Tories believe Boris should block indyref2, so as long as we have a Tory majority at Westminster indyref2 will be blocked.
How many thought we should leave the EU with no deal rather than agree to a border in the Irish Sea?
Most Tories backed the Boris Withdrawal Agreement as it took GB out of the customs union which is what they objected to in May's deal, they had no problem with Northern Ireland only staying in a customs union and parts of the single market to protect the GFA.
Giving in to the SNP on indyref2 is a totally different kettle of fish and most Tories in England and Scotland would be vehemently opposed as the poll shows
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post, David.
I'd go slightly more emotional than you: we all live on the same island and have a huge amount in common. Weather, landscapes, language (by and large), humour, families, history, heritage, and common institutions, like the monarchy, currency, NHS, BBC and armed forces.
I think it would be a tragedy to split. But, it's a battle I know is currently being lost.
I don't think it will be a huge emotional event. We will continue to share an island and a language, the queen would remain head of state initially at least, I imagine there would be reciprocal access to the NHS, there would be a common travel area like with Ireland. It's just obvious now that Scotland is on a different political trajectory. Brexit is one notable example but far from the only one. I don't think the Union is sustainable anymore. Even as someone with roots in both England and Scotland I won't mourn it.
The idea of 'world leading' this or that is a perverse way to present government policies. It is about time this came in for ridicule.
Moreover the idea that if a British company or laboratory found a cure or vaccine then we should automatically have first dibs at it, as is sometimes implied by press reports, is a bolshie attitude inappropriate to a global pandemic. We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.
Spot on.
I would like to see a "world beating" absence of puerile boasting in government.
I would not. I would like to see justification would world beating boasting. I would like an incentive for such a justification.
Do you honestly think there is a positive causal link between government ministers saying something is - or will be - great and whatever it is being great? If so, I think I could run the country.
I know some rah rah is part of political PR. Fair enough. I don't like it but that's probably just me. However, if we must have it let's have words like "fantastic" or "world class" or "spiffing" - not world BEATING as if we're in some sort of egg and spoon race. That really is puerile.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
Excellent post - although I think many of the values you identify as British are much more widely held than that across Europe and beyond. There are also a lot of parallels in what you say to how many people (though not the majority) feel about the UK and the EU. There is one key difference, though: the UK can rejoin the EU. Once the Union is broken, there is no going back. It is done. It will be a total failure of the Westminster system if it happens.
Yes, it will be ironic if Brexit prompts Scotland into making exactly the same kind of mistake as Brexit, based on exactly the same kind of wishful thinking and the same kind of disdain for economic and political realities, in pursuit of the same kind of illusory sovereignty.
Brexit and Scottish Independence are part of the the same political movement. Nostalgic nationalism.
I'm not sure nostalgia is the right word for Scottish Nationalism. Nobody was alive before Scotland was in the Union, and whilst I am not decrying Scotland's cultural achievements before Union (which were many), much of its real cultural and economical heyday took place after it - The Scottish Enlightenment, and the industrial revolution being two examples that spring to mind. It isn't looking back in fondness that drives the Indy movement as far as I can see, but looking back in anger.
Excellent post - although I think many of the values you identify as British are much more widely held than that across Europe and beyond. There are also a lot of parallels in what you say to how many people (though not the majority) feel about the UK and the EU. There is one key difference, though: the UK can rejoin the EU. Once the Union is broken, there is no going back. It is done. It will be a total failure of the Westminster system if it happens.
Yes, it will be ironic if Brexit prompts Scotland into making exactly the same kind of mistake as Brexit, based on exactly the same kind of wishful thinking and the same kind of disdain for economic and political realities, in pursuit of the same kind of illusory sovereignty.
Brexit and Scottish Independence are part of the the same political movement. Nostalgic nationalism.
I'm not sure nostalgia is the right word for Scottish Nationalism. Nobody was alive before Scotland was in the Union, and whilst I am not decrying Scotland's cultural achievements before Union (which were many), much of its real cultural and economical heyday took place after it - The Scottish Enlightenment, and the industrial revolution being two examples that spring to mind. It isn't looking back in fondness that drives the Indy movement as far as I can see, but looking back in anger.
Or looking forward in hope.
If one looks at the debates in 2013-2014 the Britnat side was absolutely crammed with historical references to the past glories of Union - e.g the Somme in 1916 in Mr Cameron's keynote speech in Glasgow - whereas the pro-indy side were very much looking forward. See the very different responses in recent weeks to vandalism of the statues of Bruce and Churchill.
58% of English Tories and a huge 85% of Scottish Tories believe Boris should block indyref2, so as long as we have a Tory majority at Westminster indyref2 will be blocked.
How many thought we should leave the EU with no deal rather than agree to a border in the Irish Sea?
Most Tories backed the Boris Withdrawal Agreement as it took GB out of the customs union which is what they objected to in May's deal, they had no problem with Northern Ireland only staying in a customs union and parts of the single market to protect the GFA.
Giving in to the SNP on indyref2 is a totally different kettle of fish and most Tories in England and Scotland would be vehemently opposed as the poll shows
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Interesting post.
I'm not sure I feel "proud" to be British. I feel very very proud of some of the things that some Brits have done and do. I feel proud when my country does the "right" thing - amnesty for the Windrush generation, legalising gay marriage, defeat the Nazis, etc. And conversely I really don't like it when my country does things I think are wrong - Windrush scandal, Brexit, etc.
I feel bound to all Brits because we are a nation state and that is still a thing these days.
As for the attributes you mention, tolerance, fair play, etc, I don't think that's particularly "British". While over the great sweep of history I'm not sure I have done all the calculations to determine whether on the whole we did more right than wrong. Or vice versa.
So being proud of it all is a bit strange tbh. I will continue to hope and act (via voting or getting involved) that the country does "right" things of which I can be proud. It's not a slam dunk, however.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post, David.
I'd go slightly more emotional than you: we all live on the same island and have a huge amount in common. Weather, landscapes, language (by and large), humour, families, history, heritage, and common institutions, like the monarchy, currency, NHS, BBC and armed forces.
I think it would be a tragedy to split. But, it's a battle I know is currently being lost.
I don't think it will be a huge emotional event. We will continue to share an island and a language, the queen would remain head of state initially at least, I imagine there would be reciprocal access to the NHS, there would be a common travel area like with Ireland. It's just obvious now that Scotland is on a different political trajectory. Brexit is one notable example but far from the only one. I don't think the Union is sustainable anymore. Even as someone with roots in both England and Scotland I won't mourn it.
Polling seems to suggest that values in Scotland and England are pretty similar. The puzzle is why the two countries vote so differently, especially when they never used to.
Mr. Sandpit (sorry for tardy reply, busy elsewhere), maybe Hulkenberg should lose the Hulk nickname and be known as Dracula, because he *always* comes back.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post, David.
I'd go slightly more emotional than you: we all live on the same island and have a huge amount in common. Weather, landscapes, language (by and large), humour, families, history, heritage, and common institutions, like the monarchy, currency, NHS, BBC and armed forces.
I think it would be a tragedy to split. But, it's a battle I know is currently being lost.
I don't think it will be a huge emotional event. We will continue to share an island and a language, the queen would remain head of state initially at least, I imagine there would be reciprocal access to the NHS, there would be a common travel area like with Ireland. It's just obvious now that Scotland is on a different political trajectory. Brexit is one notable example but far from the only one. I don't think the Union is sustainable anymore. Even as someone with roots in both England and Scotland I won't mourn it.
Polling seems to suggest that values in Scotland and England are pretty similar. The puzzle is why the two countries vote so differently, especially when they never used to.
Are they that different? I mean, obviously they vote SNP rather than Labour, but do some Scottish seats vote SNP and formerly Labour in the way some Merseyside seats vote Labour?
Polling seems to suggest that values in Scotland and England are pretty similar. The puzzle is why the two countries vote so differently, especially when they never used to.
They don't though.
They both voted overwhelmingly for petty nationalists who promised to stand up for "us" against "them"
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post, David.
I'd go slightly more emotional than you: we all live on the same island and have a huge amount in common. Weather, landscapes, language (by and large), humour, families, history, heritage, and common institutions, like the monarchy, currency, NHS, BBC and armed forces.
I think it would be a tragedy to split. But, it's a battle I know is currently being lost.
I don't think it will be a huge emotional event. We will continue to share an island and a language, the queen would remain head of state initially at least, I imagine there would be reciprocal access to the NHS, there would be a common travel area like with Ireland. It's just obvious now that Scotland is on a different political trajectory. Brexit is one notable example but far from the only one. I don't think the Union is sustainable anymore. Even as someone with roots in both England and Scotland I won't mourn it.
Polling seems to suggest that values in Scotland and England are pretty similar. The puzzle is why the two countries vote so differently, especially when they never used to.
Ironically they can even agree on Brexit now, 55% of Scots, and at least 50% or more of every English region think staying in the single market would be an acceptable outcome. On leaving the EU with no deal 49% of voters across the UK think that would be unacceptable and just 38% acceptable and in Scotland 61% think that would be unacceptable.
It was only on staying in the EU they disagreed, over 50% of Scots but less than 50% of English voters in every region bar London opposed that.
Now Boris has delivered Brexit it is possible if Starmer became PM after the next general election and aligned the UK back with the single market and gave them devomax Scottish resentment would dissipate
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post, David.
I'd go slightly more emotional than you: we all live on the same island and have a huge amount in common. Weather, landscapes, language (by and large), humour, families, history, heritage, and common institutions, like the monarchy, currency, NHS, BBC and armed forces.
I think it would be a tragedy to split. But, it's a battle I know is currently being lost.
I don't think it will be a huge emotional event. We will continue to share an island and a language, the queen would remain head of state initially at least, I imagine there would be reciprocal access to the NHS, there would be a common travel area like with Ireland. It's just obvious now that Scotland is on a different political trajectory. Brexit is one notable example but far from the only one. I don't think the Union is sustainable anymore. Even as someone with roots in both England and Scotland I won't mourn it.
Polling seems to suggest that values in Scotland and England are pretty similar. The puzzle is why the two countries vote so differently, especially when they never used to.
To be fair they have been voting quite differently for the whole of my lifetime, it's not that new a development. I agree that on fundamental values they are quite similar. But that's true of most Western European countries. Most of what we argue about on PB is the narcissism of small differences.
Of course, the same applied in the GFC, the fact that Conservative spending plans publicly matched Labour's in the run-up did not stop them, to great effect, claiming that Labour's profligacy was to blame.
"Today, government is spending too much, wasting too much and taxing too much. Britain cannot continue indefinitely to spend more than she is earning without higher taxes or higher interest rates – either of which will harm our economic prospects. If we are to secure our future prosperity, government must once again start to live within its means... we will save £12 billion a year by 2007-8... Of our £12 billion savings, we will use £8billion to reduce Labour’s excessive borrowing" - Conservative manifesto, 2005
Correction: the Cameron/Osbourne Conservative spending plans.
Howard was clearly more of a seer than I gave him credit for
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
F1: rumour that Hulkenberg might be going to Renault next year, when Ricciardo goes to McLaren.
Back to Renault! Their realistic options are either Hulkenburg, Vettel or an F2 driver, pretty much everyone else is going to end up spoken for. Vettel didn’t exactly do a good job of selling himself yesterday.
No he didn't "surprise on the upside" at all there, did he.
The idea of 'world leading' this or that is a perverse way to present government policies. It is about time this came in for ridicule.
Moreover the idea that if a British company or laboratory found a cure or vaccine then we should automatically have first dibs at it, as is sometimes implied by press reports, is a bolshie attitude inappropriate to a global pandemic. We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.
Spot on.
I would like to see a "world beating" absence of puerile boasting in government.
I would not. I would like to see justification would world beating boasting. I would like an incentive for such a justification.
Do you honestly think there is a positive causal link between government ministers saying something is - or will be - great and whatever it is being great? If so, I think I could run the country.
I know some rah rah is part of political PR. Fair enough. I don't like it but that's probably just me. However, if we must have it let's have words like "fantastic" or "world class" or "spiffing" - not world BEATING as if we're in some sort of egg and spoon race. That really is puerile.
Lordy, we spent Saturday at a virtual open day at UCL. Thankfully, its coming in fairly low on my son's list of choices.
We didn't get this nonsense but there was a distinct vibe that graduates would look to go into public service or work for an international institution rather than anything as morally dubious as private enterprise or business. I was somewhat underwhelmed.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post, David.
I'd go slightly more emotional than you: we all live on the same island and have a huge amount in common. Weather, landscapes, language (by and large), humour, families, history, heritage, and common institutions, like the monarchy, currency, NHS, BBC and armed forces.
I think it would be a tragedy to split. But, it's a battle I know is currently being lost.
I don't think it will be a huge emotional event. We will continue to share an island and a language, the queen would remain head of state initially at least, I imagine there would be reciprocal access to the NHS, there would be a common travel area like with Ireland. It's just obvious now that Scotland is on a different political trajectory. Brexit is one notable example but far from the only one. I don't think the Union is sustainable anymore. Even as someone with roots in both England and Scotland I won't mourn it.
Polling seems to suggest that values in Scotland and England are pretty similar. The puzzle is why the two countries vote so differently, especially when they never used to.
Ironically they can even agree on Brexit now, 55% of Scots, and at least 50% or more of every English region think staying in the single market would be an acceptable outcome. On leaving the EU with no deal 49% of voters across the UK think that would be unacceptable and just 38% acceptable and in Scotland 61% think that would be unacceptable.
It was only on staying in the EU they disagreed, over 50% of Scots but less than 50% of English voters in every region bar London opposed that.
Now Boris has delivered Brexit it is possible if Starmer became PM after the next general election and aligned the UK back with the single market and gave them devomax Scottish resentment would dissipate
Yep, I may be wrong, but my guess is that a change of government in Westminster would probably lead to a sigificant drop-off in support for independence. However, with another four years of the Tories that may change.
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post, David.
I'd go slightly more emotional than you: we all live on the same island and have a huge amount in common. Weather, landscapes, language (by and large), humour, families, history, heritage, and common institutions, like the monarchy, currency, NHS, BBC and armed forces.
I think it would be a tragedy to split. But, it's a battle I know is currently being lost.
I don't think it will be a huge emotional event. We will continue to share an island and a language, the queen would remain head of state initially at least, I imagine there would be reciprocal access to the NHS, there would be a common travel area like with Ireland. It's just obvious now that Scotland is on a different political trajectory. Brexit is one notable example but far from the only one. I don't think the Union is sustainable anymore. Even as someone with roots in both England and Scotland I won't mourn it.
Polling seems to suggest that values in Scotland and England are pretty similar. The puzzle is why the two countries vote so differently, especially when they never used to.
Almost everyone votes for centrist parties with very few genuine as opposed to rhetorical differences, with this exception: Recently a small number of issues have split the centrists; among these are Brexit and Scottish independence. These two issues, which have become linked, divide people who are traditionally united in being of the moderate centre, and split both centre right and centre left. Hence the differences, hence the impassioned heat from normally moderate people.
The problem is of course that there is an outstandingly decent case for every possible solution. But there are so many solutions that a majority is impossible.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Interesting post.
I'm not sure I feel "proud" to be British. I feel very very proud of some of the things that some Brits have done and do. I feel proud when my country does the "right" thing - amnesty for the Windrush generation, legalising gay marriage, defeat the Nazis, etc. And conversely I really don't like it when my country does things I think are wrong - Windrush scandal, Brexit, etc.
I feel bound to all Brits because we are a nation state and that is still a thing these days.
As for the attributes you mention, tolerance, fair play, etc, I don't think that's particularly "British". While over the great sweep of history I'm not sure I have done all the calculations to determine whether on the whole we did more right than wrong. Or vice versa.
So being proud of it all is a bit strange tbh. I will continue to hope and act (via voting or getting involved) that the country does "right" things of which I can be proud. It's not a slam dunk, however.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post, David.
I'd go slightly more emotional than you: we all live on the same island and have a huge amount in common. Weather, landscapes, language (by and large), humour, families, history, heritage, and common institutions, like the monarchy, currency, NHS, BBC and armed forces.
I think it would be a tragedy to split. But, it's a battle I know is currently being lost.
I don't think it will be a huge emotional event. We will continue to share an island and a language, the queen would remain head of state initially at least, I imagine there would be reciprocal access to the NHS, there would be a common travel area like with Ireland. It's just obvious now that Scotland is on a different political trajectory. Brexit is one notable example but far from the only one. I don't think the Union is sustainable anymore. Even as someone with roots in both England and Scotland I won't mourn it.
Polling seems to suggest that values in Scotland and England are pretty similar. The puzzle is why the two countries vote so differently, especially when they never used to.
To be fair they have been voting quite differently for the whole of my lifetime, it's not that new a development. I agree that on fundamental values they are quite similar. But that's true of most Western European countries. Most of what we argue about on PB is the narcissism of small differences.
Scotland got the government it voted for in 1997, 2001 and 2005. It didn't want a Labour government in 2015, 2017 or 2019, so got that too!
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Interesting post.
I'm not sure I feel "proud" to be British. I feel very very proud of some of the things that some Brits have done and do. I feel proud when my country does the "right" thing - amnesty for the Windrush generation, legalising gay marriage, defeat the Nazis, etc. And conversely I really don't like it when my country does things I think are wrong - Windrush scandal, Brexit, etc.
I feel bound to all Brits because we are a nation state and that is still a thing these days.
As for the attributes you mention, tolerance, fair play, etc, I don't think that's particularly "British". While over the great sweep of history I'm not sure I have done all the calculations to determine whether on the whole we did more right than wrong. Or vice versa.
So being proud of it all is a bit strange tbh. I will continue to hope and act (via voting or getting involved) that the country does "right" things of which I can be proud. It's not a slam dunk, however.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
Excellent post - although I think many of the values you identify as British are much more widely held than that across Europe and beyond. There are also a lot of parallels in what you say to how many people (though not the majority) feel about the UK and the EU. There is one key difference, though: the UK can rejoin the EU. Once the Union is broken, there is no going back. It is done. It will be a total failure of the Westminster system if it happens.
Yes, it will be ironic if Brexit prompts Scotland into making exactly the same kind of mistake as Brexit, based on exactly the same kind of wishful thinking and the same kind of disdain for economic and political realities, in pursuit of the same kind of illusory sovereignty.
Brexit and Scottish Independence are part of the the same political movement. Nostalgic nationalism.
I'm not sure nostalgia is the right word for Scottish Nationalism. Nobody was alive before Scotland was in the Union, and whilst I am not decrying Scotland's cultural achievements before Union (which were many), much of its real cultural and economical heyday took place after it - The Scottish Enlightenment, and the industrial revolution being two examples that spring to mind. It isn't looking back in fondness that drives the Indy movement as far as I can see, but looking back in anger.
Or looking forward in hope.
If one looks at the debates in 2013-2014 the Britnat side was absolutely crammed with historical references to the past glories of Union - e.g the Somme in 1916 in Mr Cameron's keynote speech in Glasgow - whereas the pro-indy side were very much looking forward. See the very different responses in recent weeks to vandalism of the statues of Bruce and Churchill.
That's probably because the past glories on the indy side were fewer, longer ago, and less relatable. That's not a dig, it's just a matter of historical timing. Amnesia about Scottish achievements within the Union is necessary when you're claiming nothing has gone right since 1707, or can go right until the shackles of London rule are torn asunder.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
They've only had 400 so far, so I guess it's "fingers crossed" for the next 6,600!
58% of English Tories and a huge 85% of Scottish Tories believe Boris should block indyref2, so as long as we have a Tory majority at Westminster indyref2 will be blocked.
How many thought we should leave the EU with no deal rather than agree to a border in the Irish Sea?
Most Tories backed the Boris Withdrawal Agreement as it took GB out of the customs union which is what they objected to in May's deal, they had no problem with Northern Ireland only staying in a customs union and parts of the single market to protect the GFA.
Giving in to the SNP on indyref2 is a totally different kettle of fish and most Tories in England and Scotland would be vehemently opposed as the poll shows
Your first statement is as delusional as the people you are describing.
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
The idea of 'world leading' this or that is a perverse way to present government policies. It is about time this came in for ridicule.
Moreover the idea that if a British company or laboratory found a cure or vaccine then we should automatically have first dibs at it, as is sometimes implied by press reports, is a bolshie attitude inappropriate to a global pandemic. We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.
Spot on.
I would like to see a "world beating" absence of puerile boasting in government.
I would not. I would like to see justification would world beating boasting. I would like an incentive for such a justification.
Do you honestly think there is a positive causal link between government ministers saying something is - or will be - great and whatever it is being great? If so, I think I could run the country.
I know some rah rah is part of political PR. Fair enough. I don't like it but that's probably just me. However, if we must have it let's have words like "fantastic" or "world class" or "spiffing" - not world BEATING as if we're in some sort of egg and spoon race. That really is puerile.
Yes I do.
That's silly. Saying something is great does not by one iota improve its intrinsic quality. Government would be a cakewalk if it did. Put me in charge, I'll just say everything is absolutely fabulous. This is undeniably one of the more obvious cases of me being right and you being wrong. Or are you trying to create an argument just to have one?
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
I disagree for four reasons.
1: We're not protected by water, people travel across borders by air not boat. 2: Social distancing matters and we have one of the least distanced nations in the world. We have one of the highest population densities in the world. 3: This epidemic is far from over. 4: Many other nations figures are not honest or accurate - either by design or incompetence. Ours have been trying to be at least.
I have no doubt that the polls accurately reflect public opinion on lockdown and it did come in a week or ten days too late. However, Sage minutes clearly demonstrate that were not recommending it and something happened for it to be brought forward to the date it came into force. Only an enquiry will resolve that 'something' but if Cummings was responsible for that advice then it will be very ironic. It should be noted all four nations accepted and put lockdown in force identically. I have no doubt we would be where we are now even if Starmer had been pm
This weekend Berwick's pubs and restaurants were overwhelmed with Scots bookings from places like Eyemouth and Edinburgh and also Glasgow. That business lost to Scottish borders towns will be hard to take for those businesses.
As soon as England allowed non quarantine travel Scots flocked to book their holidays through England's airports so much so that the CEO of Aberdeen airport expressed dismay, and to be honest that business is lost for this year now, no matter when and if the Scottish regulations change
This divergence by Sturgeon and Drakeford is a political a statement against the UK government, but sadly it is their economies that are being hit
And now both governments are demanded the UK treasury help to mitigate the damage to their economies though some of this is self inflicted. I know Sturgeon wants to eliminate the virus but that is not possible according to all the experts I have listened to
There is a very long way to go in the story of this virus and I would just comment that if, and it is a big if, this weekends opening of the economy in England does not see further lockdowns, then there will only be one government that will receive the plaudits
The idea of 'world leading' this or that is a perverse way to present government policies. It is about time this came in for ridicule.
Moreover the idea that if a British company or laboratory found a cure or vaccine then we should automatically have first dibs at it, as is sometimes implied by press reports, is a bolshie attitude inappropriate to a global pandemic. We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.
Spot on.
I would like to see a "world beating" absence of puerile boasting in government.
I would not. I would like to see justification would world beating boasting. I would like an incentive for such a justification.
Do you honestly think there is a positive causal link between government ministers saying something is - or will be - great and whatever it is being great? If so, I think I could run the country.
I know some rah rah is part of political PR. Fair enough. I don't like it but that's probably just me. However, if we must have it let's have words like "fantastic" or "world class" or "spiffing" - not world BEATING as if we're in some sort of egg and spoon race. That really is puerile.
Yes I do.
That's silly. Saying something is great does not by one iota improve its intrinsic quality. Government would be a cakewalk if it did. Put me in charge, I'll just say everything's absolutely fabulous. This is undeniably of the more obvious cases of me being right and you being wrong. Or are you trying to create an argument just to have one?
Saying something is great does not make it great but striving for greatness is how you achieve it. Saying something will be great puts pressure on to make it great.
You don't achieve greatness by sitting back and saying que sera sera.
The people of Hong Kong have been perfectly capable of standing up for their own democratic rights without being whipped up by anyone.
What an ignorant toerag that guy is. He doesn't talk for this leftie.
Dr Hugh Goodacre is quite the freelance socialist useful idiot. He has previously outed himself as a fan of North Korea. The chap's also a Stalin enthusiast.
Sitting in his comfortable Blooomsbury office, Goodacre said that he did “not accept that there are systematic human rights violations in North Korea… it is a very egalitarian country”. A United Nations report has said human rights abuses in the country are “strikingly similar” to those in Nazi Germany.
“There are not prison camps. There social issues under socialism are confronted, which are different from those which are confronted under capitalism. You have people who cannot reconcile themselves to the establishment of a socialist system. Something has to be done about them.” Nonetheless Dr Goodacre was keen to emphasise that “it is never necessary to violate human rights”, but contended that “any adverse effects on the lives of anybody in North Korea are the responsibility of imperialism. “ https://cheesegratermagazine.org/2015/02/04/koreaing-out-of-control/
It's amazing how a certain type of Westerner gets taken in time and time again by autocrats saying a few right words about cooperation and women's rights.
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
But is that for security reasons or competition reasons?
If SLAB could actually find a decent leader that would help.
You’ve put your finger on it. The key problem for all the Unionist parties is lack of talent. All three of them have been so negative for so long that they have crippled recruitment. SLab haven’t had a decent intake since the 1980s, with all the good ones since then having slowly drifted off.
Constantly thundering on about how crap Scotland is is designed to discourage young people.
Garden Walker above says that nobody has made a case for the Union for a long time. There are two reasons for this:
1. there is no case to be made 2. even if there were, there is no authoritative, respected voice to deliver it to the key floating voters
Unionists focus far too much on their core voters. That is a hopeless strategy designed to fail. They must reach out to Middle Scotland. Politicians like Johnson, Carlaw, Leonard and Rennie are never going to achieve that. They just wouldn’t know where to start.
54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at GE19 when you combine the vote for Scottish Tories, Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs.
So technically they are already winning middle Scotland
There is nothing I enjoy more than a complacent Unionist.
The PB Scotch experts adding national psychoanalysis to their portfolios of expertise is an exciting, new development. That they tend to be some of the more thin skinned, cranky posters with a taste for British exceptionalism suggests self awareness is not going into those portfolios anytime soon.
We can fly what ever flag we want - do you think the countries/states that currently have the Union flag as part of their flag are going to change theirs? It's a strong brand. Keep it.
The Czech Republic kept the flag of Czechoslovakia. There's no reason the United Kingdom of England and Wales could not cling to the butcher's apron if they wanted.
It's amazing how a certain type of Westerner gets taken in time and time again by autocrats saying a few right words about cooperation and women's rights.
The only thing that is not true about it is that anyone who only realised how authoritarian China is in the last 6 months really shouldn't be allowed out on their own.
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
I disagree for four reasons.
1: We're not protected by water, people travel across borders by air not boat. 2: Social distancing matters and we have one of the least distanced nations in the world. We have one of the highest population densities in the world. 3: This epidemic is far from over. 4: Many other nations figures are not honest or accurate - either by design or incompetence. Ours have been trying to be at least.
There are various reasons for us having the worst outcome in the world. But good luck if you wish to leave "Johnson government response" off the list.
It's amazing how a certain type of Westerner gets taken in time and time again by autocrats saying a few right words about cooperation and women's rights.
The only thing that is not true about it is that anyone who only realised how authoritarian China is in the last 6 months really shouldn't be allowed out on their own.
How do these people get appointed to these jobs, number 4,896
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
Well, yes. As I said, since then, they’ve messed up more (not including the care homes, which was a massive unforced error early on that killed thousands). Particularly (but not remotely limited to) the messaging. And the messaging is crucial, because you need to get people to comply with social distancing and often intrusive and annoying restrictions.
The PB Scotch experts adding national psychoanalysis to their portfolios of expertise is an exciting, new development. That they tend to be some of the more thin skinned, cranky posters with a taste for British exceptionalism suggests self awareness is not going into those portfolios anytime soon.
Maybe some of us are Scots experts but you just want to shout down anything that disturbs your obsession
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
But is that for security reasons or competition reasons?
Mostly the latter but justfied by the former. My own belief is the US likes a world were essentially everybody uses US technology, or that of close allies, that can be leant on when necessary, and doesn't want a world where that ceases to be the case. Now in the case of China there might even be some legitimacy to that point of view, but I suspect America wouldn't be much keener even if China was squeeky clean but not aligned with the US.
It's amazing how a certain type of Westerner gets taken in time and time again by autocrats saying a few right words about cooperation and women's rights.
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
But is that for security reasons or competition reasons?
On 4G and 5G hardware and software the US is generally way behind Huawei. There are no US companies that come close to offering the breadth and quality of what Huawei has. It's a total failure of strategic planning and the free market. Amazingly, even Europe - in the shape of Nokia and Ericsson - is ahead of the Americans.
Unless the government cockblocks Wa-We there will be no F-35A wing at Lakenheath so they've got no choice really. They are just not ready countenance the strategic implications of that.
We can fly what ever flag we want - do you think the countries/states that currently have the Union flag as part of their flag are going to change theirs? It's a strong brand. Keep it.
The Czech Republic kept the flag of Czechoslovakia. There's no reason the United Kingdom of England and Wales could not cling to the butcher's apron if they wanted.
If we in Wales have to stay in Johnson's cut price Union, the least we expect is some green and a dragon amongst the blood and bandages.
If SLAB could actually find a decent leader that would help.
You’ve put your finger on it. The key problem for all the Unionist parties is lack of talent. All three of them have been so negative for so long that they have crippled recruitment. SLab haven’t had a decent intake since the 1980s, with all the good ones since then having slowly drifted off.
Constantly thundering on about how crap Scotland is is designed to discourage young people.
Garden Walker above says that nobody has made a case for the Union for a long time. There are two reasons for this:
1. there is no case to be made 2. even if there were, there is no authoritative, respected voice to deliver it to the key floating voters
Unionists focus far too much on their core voters. That is a hopeless strategy designed to fail. They must reach out to Middle Scotland. Politicians like Johnson, Carlaw, Leonard and Rennie are never going to achieve that. They just wouldn’t know where to start.
54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at GE19 when you combine the vote for Scottish Tories, Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs.
So technically they are already winning middle Scotland
There is nothing I enjoy more than a complacent Unionist.
Oh come on, that's a bit obsessive even for you. A romantic evening with your loved one, a decent bottle of wine, a nice steak, even (for the really aspirational) Scotland winning a football match against a country with a bigger population than its own. The list is almost endless.
We can fly what ever flag we want - do you think the countries/states that currently have the Union flag as part of their flag are going to change theirs? It's a strong brand. Keep it.
The Czech Republic kept the flag of Czechoslovakia. There's no reason the United Kingdom of England and Wales could not cling to the butcher's apron if they wanted.
This is the butcher's apron that was regularly flown by pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong before their freedom was abolished?
Of course, it’s all the fault of Boris and Trump. Nothing at all to do with a muderous Chinese regime hell-bent on world dominance. Surely even the Grauniad have limits on the sort of crap they’ll publish?
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
But is that for security reasons or competition reasons?
On 4G and 5G hardware and software the US is generally way behind Huawei. There are no US companies that come close to offering the breadth and quality of what Huawei has. It's a total failure of strategic planning and the free market. Amazingly, even Europe - in the shape of Nokia and Ericsson - is ahead of the Americans.
So you think it is competition and giving their manufacturers a chance to catch up? That would be my suspicion, even if its given a national security cloak (which in the medium term may well be justified, by the way).
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
But is that for security reasons or competition reasons?
A cynic might say that the Americans want to retain their monopoly on spyware-infested national telecoms infrastructure.
But yes, the extent to which Huawei is simply an arm of the Chinese government is vastly underestimated by Western countries. It’s a genuine threat to national security.
The idea of 'world leading' this or that is a perverse way to present government policies. It is about time this came in for ridicule.
Moreover the idea that if a British company or laboratory found a cure or vaccine then we should automatically have first dibs at it, as is sometimes implied by press reports, is a bolshie attitude inappropriate to a global pandemic. We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.
Spot on.
I would like to see a "world beating" absence of puerile boasting in government.
I would not. I would like to see justification would world beating boasting. I would like an incentive for such a justification.
Do you honestly think there is a positive causal link between government ministers saying something is - or will be - great and whatever it is being great? If so, I think I could run the country.
I know some rah rah is part of political PR. Fair enough. I don't like it but that's probably just me. However, if we must have it let's have words like "fantastic" or "world class" or "spiffing" - not world BEATING as if we're in some sort of egg and spoon race. That really is puerile.
Yes I do.
That's silly. Saying something is great does not by one iota improve its intrinsic quality. Government would be a cakewalk if it did. Put me in charge, I'll just say everything's absolutely fabulous. This is undeniably of the more obvious cases of me being right and you being wrong. Or are you trying to create an argument just to have one?
Saying something is great does not make it great but striving for greatness is how you achieve it. Saying something will be great puts pressure on to make it great.
You don't achieve greatness by sitting back and saying que sera sera.
I once had a boss at Lehman Bros who banged on like this. Shoot for the stars. Do it once do it right. There's nothing we can't do if we put our minds to it. It certainly did put the pressure on and it did lead to things. But not to greatness.
Unlike me to throw "real world" in - I usually prefer ivory tower logic and ideology - but there you go. Fact is, the big talk has no positive impact unless the culture and resource is in place to deliver. And if they are in place you don't need the big talk.
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
But is that for security reasons or competition reasons?
On 4G and 5G hardware and software the US is generally way behind Huawei. There are no US companies that come close to offering the breadth and quality of what Huawei has. It's a total failure of strategic planning and the free market. Amazingly, even Europe - in the shape of Nokia and Ericsson - is ahead of the Americans.
So you think it is competition and giving their manufacturers a chance to catch up? That would be my suspicion, even if its given a national security cloak (which in the medium term may well be justified, by the way).
Ericsson (and Nokia to a less extent) are really American companies now...
The issue is that Huawei are far cheaper (and were quicker to get to market) than the other options...
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
But is that for security reasons or competition reasons?
On 4G and 5G hardware and software the US is generally way behind Huawei. There are no US companies that come close to offering the breadth and quality of what Huawei has. It's a total failure of strategic planning and the free market. Amazingly, even Europe - in the shape of Nokia and Ericsson - is ahead of the Americans.
So you think it is competition and giving their manufacturers a chance to catch up? That would be my suspicion, even if its given a national security cloak (which in the medium term may well be justified, by the way).
There's free competition and free competition
Huawei are not offering the breadth and quality of service as a private company, they are offering it as the political tool of the chinese state, with the enormous resources of that state behind them.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Interesting post.
I'm not sure I feel "proud" to be British. I feel very very proud of some of the things that some Brits have done and do. I feel proud when my country does the "right" thing - amnesty for the Windrush generation, legalising gay marriage, defeat the Nazis, etc. And conversely I really don't like it when my country does things I think are wrong - Windrush scandal, Brexit, etc.
I feel bound to all Brits because we are a nation state and that is still a thing these days.
As for the attributes you mention, tolerance, fair play, etc, I don't think that's particularly "British". While over the great sweep of history I'm not sure I have done all the calculations to determine whether on the whole we did more right than wrong. Or vice versa.
So being proud of it all is a bit strange tbh. I will continue to hope and act (via voting or getting involved) that the country does "right" things of which I can be proud. It's not a slam dunk, however.
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
But is that for security reasons or competition reasons?
On 4G and 5G hardware and software the US is generally way behind Huawei. There are no US companies that come close to offering the breadth and quality of what Huawei has. It's a total failure of strategic planning and the free market. Amazingly, even Europe - in the shape of Nokia and Ericsson - is ahead of the Americans.
So you think it is competition and giving their manufacturers a chance to catch up? That would be my suspicion, even if its given a national security cloak (which in the medium term may well be justified, by the way).
Ericsson (and Nokia to a less extent) are really American companies now...
The issue is that Huawei are far cheaper (and were quicker to get to market) than the other options...
Cheaper due to their own innovation or due to the sponsorship and subsidy of the Chinese government?
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
But is that for security reasons or competition reasons?
On 4G and 5G hardware and software the US is generally way behind Huawei. There are no US companies that come close to offering the breadth and quality of what Huawei has. It's a total failure of strategic planning and the free market. Amazingly, even Europe - in the shape of Nokia and Ericsson - is ahead of the Americans.
So you think it is competition and giving their manufacturers a chance to catch up? That would be my suspicion, even if its given a national security cloak (which in the medium term may well be justified, by the way).
Ericsson (and Nokia to a less extent) are really American companies now...
The issue is that Huawei are far cheaper (and were quicker to get to market) than the other options...
Cheaper due to their own innovation or due to the sponsorship and subsidy of the Chinese government?
I suspect the latter but equally I'm led to believe the quality was good enough rather than exceptional.
I don't know for sure but I think Huawei were working on the basis of things go wrong but it's so cheap you can replace things rather than the Rolls Royce approach Ericsson and Nokia offered.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
I thin Pulpstar is modelling it as a Poisson distribution, if that's what you mean.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post, David.
I'd go slightly more emotional than you: we all live on the same island and have a huge amount in common. Weather, landscapes, language (by and large), humour, families, history, heritage, and common institutions, like the monarchy, currency, NHS, BBC and armed forces.
I think it would be a tragedy to split. But, it's a battle I know is currently being lost.
I don't think it will be a huge emotional event. We will continue to share an island and a language, the queen would remain head of state initially at least, I imagine there would be reciprocal access to the NHS, there would be a common travel area like with Ireland. It's just obvious now that Scotland is on a different political trajectory. Brexit is one notable example but far from the only one. I don't think the Union is sustainable anymore. Even as someone with roots in both England and Scotland I won't mourn it.
Polling seems to suggest that values in Scotland and England are pretty similar. The puzzle is why the two countries vote so differently, especially when they never used to.
To be fair they have been voting quite differently for the whole of my lifetime, it's not that new a development. I agree that on fundamental values they are quite similar. But that's true of most Western European countries. Most of what we argue about on PB is the narcissism of small differences.
Scotland got the government it voted for in 1997, 2001 and 2005. It didn't want a Labour government in 2015, 2017 or 2019, so got that too!
Aside from 2015 (I can't remember where you were in your on/off affair with the Labour party at that moment) , that pretty much reflects your political wants, doesn't it? 2017 and 2019 have gone particularly well!
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
Sweden has had a tremendous last 14 days in Covid deaths. Unless they are about to do some massive revisions we are looking at sub 20 (maybe even sub 15) Covid deaths a day once the data lag has been accounted for.
The PB Scotch experts adding national psychoanalysis to their portfolios of expertise is an exciting, new development. That they tend to be some of the more thin skinned, cranky posters with a taste for British exceptionalism suggests self awareness is not going into those portfolios anytime soon.
Maybe some of us are Scots experts but you just want to shout down anything that disturbs your obsession
Shouting down? You've an odd perception of shouting down. Whatever it is that you do, 33k+ posts suggests that you're doing a lot more of it than I am.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
I thin Pulpstar is modelling it as a Poisson distribution, if that's what you mean.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
Assuming a probability of one in 7000 then the expected value for the first infected is 7000. That does not mean the chances of it being EXACTLY 7000 is large, infact it is 1.5*10^-5.
The probability of a true positive in the first 400 is 0.0057.
I'm not sure I feel "proud" to be British. I feel very very proud of some of the things that some Brits have done and do. I feel proud when my country does the "right" thing - amnesty for the Windrush generation, legalising gay marriage, defeat the Nazis, etc. And conversely I really don't like it when my country does things I think are wrong - Windrush scandal, Brexit, etc.
I feel bound to all Brits because we are a nation state and that is still a thing these days.
As for the attributes you mention, tolerance, fair play, etc, I don't think that's particularly "British". While over the great sweep of history I'm not sure I have done all the calculations to determine whether on the whole we did more right than wrong. Or vice versa.
So being proud of it all is a bit strange tbh. I will continue to hope and act (via voting or getting involved) that the country does "right" things of which I can be proud. It's not a slam dunk, however.
A very British response. Makes you proud...
Yes, that's what I thought, with a friendly smile. Like Heinemann ("I do not love my country - I love my wife, love is not appropriate for a country") I'm wary of attributing emotions natural in the personal sphere to countries, whose record is inevitably mixed (hell, it's hard enough dealing with the mixtures of good, bad and unclear that we all are ourselves). There is a lot to like about Britain and it's pleasantly familiar to most of us - I wouldn't go further than that.
But that perhaps in my case reflects a comfortable international background and attachment to diverse influences. I think that the straightforward unquestioning patriotism that we especially associate with Red Wall Brits who were alienated by Cotbyn is partly driven by a really visceral need to have a strong association to rely on. Just judiciously saying we like this bit but Denmark's better for that bit and Australia for a third bit is all too detached and equivocal for people who just want to feel that there's one strong team they can identify with.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
I thin Pulpstar is modelling it as a Poisson distribution, if that's what you mean.
The geometric distribution is the correct way to model the probabilities, at least in theory.
I once had a boss at Lehman Bros who banged on like this. Shoot for the stars. Do it once do it right. There's nothing we can't do if we put our minds to it. It certainly did put the pressure on and it did lead to things. But not to greatness.
Unlike me to throw "real world" in - I usually prefer ivory tower logic and ideology - but there you go. Fact is, the big talk has no positive impact unless the culture and resource is in place to deliver. And if they are in place you don't need the big talk.
This was mindless stuff, but it exposed the state of mind of Johnson and the Vote Leave hegemony. What matters is not objective truth. It is the power of positive thinking. It is not necessary to take into account the actual willingness of India or Canada or Australia to enter a British-led free trade zone. It is not necessary to think about what Trump means when he says America First. For Johnson, and for the wider nexus of Brexiteers, attitude alone shapes outcomes. Everything comes down to belief. The X Factor in this mentality is not ability – as in the TV talent contest – it is the undaunted determination to follow the dream.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
Maths
I get:
1% chance after 70 2% chance after 141 5% chance after 359 10% chance after 737 20% chance after 1,562 30% chance after 2,497 40% chance after 3,576 50% chance after 4,852 64% chance after 7,000
Comments
If the UK prospers then, regardless of whether we might have prospered more within the EU, or the other positives that would come from membership, only the small minority with a European identity would be in favour.
If the UK struggles then to rejoin would be psychologically equivalent to surrender. We would be admitting that we couldn't cope as an independent country. I think a majority of the electorate would recoil from such a conclusion. Even if a majority did not the EU would be wise to reject our membership in that circumstance. We would forever resent our membership as proof of our weakness.
The chance for a positive UK membership of the EU would have been based on wanting to belong to a greater whole. Of choosing to be part of a joint endeavour, to be willing to pay a price to do so. But politicians on all sides did nothing to encourage that European identity. Their practice was to benefit in the short term by blaming Brussels for anything unpopular, and fostered an us and them dynamic.
Instead our membership was presented as involuntary. We had to remain because we were not capable of being independent. Who wants to sign up on those terms?
The same mistake is being made with the British Union. If you tell people they have no choice they will show you that they bloody well do have a choice.
What will get this allocated/distributed globally is money. Cold hard cash. And absolutely those who have paid for the research, paid for the vaccine will and should get it first - and if they didn't there wouldn't be the research, there wouldn't be the vaccine and the whole world would be worse off.
The WHO will be the right vector for getting the virus vaccine to hard to reach third world nations like tackling Ebola - it isn't necessary to distribute it to the first world nations that can deal with companies directly.
I'm not sure nostalgia is the right word for Scottish Nationalism. Nobody was alive before Scotland was in the Union, and whilst I am not decrying Scotland's cultural achievements before Union (which were many), much of its real cultural and economical heyday took place after it - The Scottish Enlightenment, and the industrial revolution being two examples that spring to mind. It isn't looking back in fondness that drives the Indy movement as far as I can see, but looking back in anger.
And very unusual in the history of countries gaining independence.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/shiny-beads-and-trinkets/
If however the SNP win a majority next year and Starmer becomes PM in 2024 then indyref2 is possible as 54% of English Labour voters would allow indyref2, though Starmer would also align the UK back with the single market reducing the chances of a Yes vote anyway
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/22/pandemic-zero-coronavirus-britain?CMP=share_btn_tw
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
The actions of supposedly Unionist politicians is acting to create Scottish national identity now - because they see how they benefit in the short term by playing up the divide between England and Scotland.
Giving in to the SNP on indyref2 is a totally different kettle of fish and most Tories in England and Scotland would be vehemently opposed as the poll shows
It's just obvious now that Scotland is on a different political trajectory. Brexit is one notable example but far from the only one. I don't think the Union is sustainable anymore. Even as someone with roots in both England and Scotland I won't mourn it.
I know some rah rah is part of political PR. Fair enough. I don't like it but that's probably just me. However, if we must have it let's have words like "fantastic" or "world class" or "spiffing" - not world BEATING as if we're in some sort of egg and spoon race. That really is puerile.
- - Just not to the outside world.
Rather makes the point, doesn't it?
There sure aren't enough in Scotland.
I'm not sure I feel "proud" to be British. I feel very very proud of some of the things that some Brits have done and do. I feel proud when my country does the "right" thing - amnesty for the Windrush generation, legalising gay marriage, defeat the Nazis, etc. And conversely I really don't like it when my country does things I think are wrong - Windrush scandal, Brexit, etc.
I feel bound to all Brits because we are a nation state and that is still a thing these days.
As for the attributes you mention, tolerance, fair play, etc, I don't think that's particularly "British". While over the great sweep of history I'm not sure I have done all the calculations to determine whether on the whole we did more right than wrong. Or vice versa.
So being proud of it all is a bit strange tbh. I will continue to hope and act (via voting or getting involved) that the country does "right" things of which I can be proud. It's not a slam dunk, however.
They both voted overwhelmingly for petty nationalists who promised to stand up for "us" against "them"
It was only on staying in the EU they disagreed, over 50% of Scots but less than 50% of English voters in every region bar London opposed that.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/gja4f57ex2/AcceptableBrexitOutcomes_190816.pdf
Now Boris has delivered Brexit it is possible if Starmer became PM after the next general election and aligned the UK back with the single market and gave them devomax Scottish resentment would dissipate
Howard was clearly more of a seer than I gave him credit for
When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good.
If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We didn't get this nonsense but there was a distinct vibe that graduates would look to go into public service or work for an international institution rather than anything as morally dubious as private enterprise or business. I was somewhat underwhelmed.
What an ignorant toerag that guy is. He doesn't talk for this leftie.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
The problem is of course that there is an outstandingly decent case for every possible solution. But there are so many solutions that a majority is impossible.
(a) False positive test ratio
(b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
1: We're not protected by water, people travel across borders by air not boat.
2: Social distancing matters and we have one of the least distanced nations in the world. We have one of the highest population densities in the world.
3: This epidemic is far from over.
4: Many other nations figures are not honest or accurate - either by design or incompetence. Ours have been trying to be at least.
This weekend Berwick's pubs and restaurants were overwhelmed with Scots bookings from places like Eyemouth and Edinburgh and also Glasgow. That business lost to Scottish borders towns will be hard to take for those businesses.
As soon as England allowed non quarantine travel Scots flocked to book their holidays through England's airports so much so that the CEO of Aberdeen airport expressed dismay, and to be honest that business is lost for this year now, no matter when and if the Scottish regulations change
This divergence by Sturgeon and Drakeford is a political a statement against the UK government, but sadly it is their economies that are being hit
And now both governments are demanded the UK treasury help to mitigate the damage to their economies though some of this is self inflicted. I know Sturgeon wants to eliminate the virus but that is not possible according to all the experts I have listened to
There is a very long way to go in the story of this virus and I would just comment that if, and it is a big if, this weekends opening of the economy in England does not see further lockdowns, then there will only be one government that will receive the plaudits
You don't achieve greatness by sitting back and saying que sera sera.
Sitting in his comfortable Blooomsbury office, Goodacre said that he did “not accept that there are systematic human rights violations in North Korea… it is a very egalitarian country”. A United Nations report has said human rights abuses in the country are “strikingly similar” to those in Nazi Germany.
“There are not prison camps. There social issues under socialism are confronted, which are different from those which are confronted under capitalism. You have people who cannot reconcile themselves to the establishment of a socialist system. Something has to be done about them.” Nonetheless Dr Goodacre was keen to emphasise that “it is never necessary to violate human rights”, but contended that “any adverse effects on the lives of anybody in North Korea are the responsibility of imperialism. “
https://cheesegratermagazine.org/2015/02/04/koreaing-out-of-control/
https://www.twitter.com/LizEconomy/status/1279909842010943488
It's amazing how a certain type of Westerner gets taken in time and time again by autocrats saying a few right words about cooperation and women's rights.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/05/frederick-douglass-statue-rochester-new-york-vandalized/5381093002/
As I said, since then, they’ve messed up more (not including the care homes, which was a massive unforced error early on that killed thousands). Particularly (but not remotely limited to) the messaging.
And the messaging is crucial, because you need to get people to comply with social distancing and often intrusive and annoying restrictions.
If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
https://www.twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1280101396960940032
But yes, the extent to which Huawei is simply an arm of the Chinese government is vastly underestimated by Western countries. It’s a genuine threat to national security.
Unlike me to throw "real world" in - I usually prefer ivory tower logic and ideology - but there you go. Fact is, the big talk has no positive impact unless the culture and resource is in place to deliver. And if they are in place you don't need the big talk.
The issue is that Huawei are far cheaper (and were quicker to get to market) than the other options...
Huawei are not offering the breadth and quality of service as a private company, they are offering it as the political tool of the chinese state, with the enormous resources of that state behind them.
I don't know for sure but I think Huawei were working on the basis of things go wrong but it's so cheap you can replace things rather than the Rolls Royce approach Ericsson and Nokia offered.
Whatever it is that you do, 33k+ posts suggests that you're doing a lot more of it than I am.
Assuming a probability of one in 7000 then the expected value for the first infected is 7000. That does not mean the chances of it being EXACTLY 7000 is large, infact it is 1.5*10^-5.
The probability of a true positive in the first 400 is 0.0057.
But that perhaps in my case reflects a comfortable international background and attachment to diverse influences. I think that the straightforward unquestioning patriotism that we especially associate with Red Wall Brits who were alienated by Cotbyn is partly driven by a really visceral need to have a strong association to rely on. Just judiciously saying we like this bit but Denmark's better for that bit and Australia for a third bit is all too detached and equivocal for people who just want to feel that there's one strong team they can identify with.
https://twitter.com/AndrewSparrow/status/1280112097872031745
Herd immunity? Not even close.
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/07/fatal-delusions-boris-johnson
1% chance after 70
2% chance after 141
5% chance after 359
10% chance after 737
20% chance after 1,562
30% chance after 2,497
40% chance after 3,576
50% chance after 4,852
64% chance after 7,000