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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
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.
No it's not. That's flawed.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
I would say if you roll a dice 6 times the chance of rolling at least one 6 is approx 2/3 (66%).
It is indeed, but you also have a greater than 50% chance of having a six by the 4th roll of the dice (52% chance by roll 4).
People who leap from the odds and change that into the number of events are making a terrible failure of logic most of the time.
Tick.
Here's a question I like to pose -
If you were offered 4/1 odds on tails for a single coin toss - fair coin fair toss - what % of your net wealth would you stake on it?
You should wager 37.5% of your total wealth (Kelly criterion) but most people would wager far far less.
That feels about right. What if it's 10/1? Does that take it beyond 50%?
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.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
And sorry to hit you with a cliche but "advisors advise, ministers decide".
So when they ignore advice to do something you agree with then they are taking responsibility and when they ignore it to do something you disagree with they are doing some great crime in your eyes.
I'm saying they (i) should be judged by results and (ii) should not try to palm off responsibility for decisions onto unelected advisors.
Of course (ii) is an obvious avenue - since they must make the challenging argument that a good decision led to a bad result - but imo it ought to be resisted.
But in this case the decision was to go into lockdown sooner than advised by the scientific advisors. Which completely undermines any argument that they should have gone even earlier than they did.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
Not sure that partition worked out so well in the Irish case. My personal view is that if Scotland decides to leave then the whole of Scotland should leave, you simply dissolve the Act of Union and the whole country leaves like the whole country joined. (If you want to start keeping in the subterritories that don't vote to leave then please allow Scotland and London to stay in the EU). If any part of Scotland subsequently decides it wants to be part of England instead then that can be decided later, once a clear separatist majority exists in that territory and subject to referendum. Deciding the question at the same time as Scottish independence would look like an English land grab or punishment for leaving.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
Not sure that partition worked out so well in the Irish case. My personal view is that if Scotland decides to leave then the whole of Scotland should leave, you simply dissolve the Act of Union and the whole country leaves like the whole country joined. (If you want to start keeping in the subterritories that don't vote to leave then please allow Scotland and London to stay in the EU). If any part of Scotland subsequently decides it wants to be part of England instead then that can be decided later, once a clear separatist majority exists in that territory and subject to referendum. Deciding the question at the same time as Scottish independence would look like an English land grab or punishment for leaving.
" ... part of rUK ..." would be more accurate. But yes. That is right.
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.
No it's not. That's flawed.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
I would say if you roll a dice 6 times the chance of rolling at least one 6 is approx 2/3 (66%).
It is indeed, but you also have a greater than 50% chance of having a six by the 4th roll of the dice (52% chance by roll 4).
People who leap from the odds and change that into the number of events are making a terrible failure of logic most of the time.
Tick.
Here's a question I like to pose -
If you were offered 4/1 odds on tails for a single coin toss - fair coin fair toss - what % of your net wealth would you stake on it?
You should wager 37.5% of your total wealth (Kelly criterion) but most people would wager far far less.
That feels about right. What if it's 10/1? Does that take it beyond 50%?
No. As the payoff goes to infinity, the kelly criterion heads to 50%.
I've just noticed that the Economist prediction for the Electoral College doesn't seem to account for Maine and Nebraska awarding Electoral College votes by Congressional District.
Although unlikely, there are some scenarios where Trump winning ME-2 is enough to make the difference. Thought it was worth pointing out.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
At the very least, the gov't is lifting the lockdown at a time deaths have never been lower (since lockdown).
As Panarama will show tonight hospitals now have to get back to normal and start treating people with other illnesses
There is an absolutely foreseeable scandal on the way, perhaps next year, when the BBC and Guardian together with the popular press start highlighting dying people who were not properly diagnosed/referred by GPs between March and July (and after) because millions of people who should have been seen were talked to over the phone, and thousands who were referred were dealt with likewise by consultants.
I personally know of cases where it is obvious that someone should have been looked at but was not. In most cases (99%?) of course it will be OK. But 1% of a million is 10,000 people - and that's enough to keep the press and media going for months.
At that point people may stop clapping the NHS quite so loudly. SKS will be missing an opening if he is unqualified in his support for the medics.
But in this case the decision was to go into lockdown sooner than advised by the scientific advisors. Which completely undermines any argument that they should have gone even earlier than they did.
Not really
The other sovereign government on these islands, the one in Dublin, took its lead from the World Health Organisation. The Irish government cancelled the planned national celebration of St Patrick’s Day and started the process of shutting down pubs and social gatherings on 9 March. In the fortnight that followed, Britain allowed Liverpool to play Atlético Madrid at Anfield, in front of a crowd that included 3,000 fans from Spain, many of whom travelled from Madrid, a city already ravaged by the virus. The Cheltenham racing festival went ahead on 10-13 March. Public transport remained packed. Pubs and restaurants stayed open.
Why the difference? It was not that the Irish government was particularly brilliant, merely that it was not blinded by an obsession that there should be some special Irish way of facing the threat. It grasped the meaning of the “pan” in pandemic: all, every, whole. This was something happening to humanity, not to individual nations. But in London, the government (and to some extent its scientific advisers) seemed to be reading a book called Why Be Normal When You Can Be British?
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.
No it's not. That's flawed.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
I would say if you roll a dice 6 times the chance of rolling at least one 6 is approx 2/3 (66%).
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
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.
No it's not. That's flawed.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
I would say if you roll a dice 6 times the chance of rolling at least one 6 is approx 2/3 (66%).
1 - ((5/6)**6)
One of the great truths - probability of something happening + the probability of it not happening = 1.
Regardless of whatever turmoil in the world - even if Trump wins California in November - this is something to cling onto. It will never let you down.
We’re not going to agree so there’s little point in boring others. We come fundamentally different perspectives.
I believe that Parliament derives its authority from the people. Most of the time that works in the way that you believe.
However the key exceptions are around constitutional affairs: the “rules of the game”.
In order to fundamentally change the rules of the game, likely in perpetuity, the government has to seek direct instruction from the people. And once that instruction is given then it is bound to implement the wishes of the people (in principle, not in detail).
This, the 2017 parliament could not have overturned the 2016 instruction to leave the EU. However they could have approved a BINO/EEA+ model as that was within their authority.
In 2014 the Scottish electorate was asked if they wanted to leave the Union. They said no. That needs to be respected. There will come a point when it is reasonable to ask again - I think 20 years but 25 is just as reasonable. 40 is too long. 7 is too short.
You would be right, but for Brexit. The 2014 referendum was fought on the basis that leaving the UK meant leaving the EU too, at least for several years. The Scottish electorate voted against leaving the UK and the EU by 55:45. In 2016 they voted against leaving the EU by 62:38 (suggesting more support for EU membership than UK membership of course). But they are now outside the EU. This is a material change in the circumstances under which the 2014 referendum was fought, one which the Scottish people did not ask for. Since the choice is no longer EU+UK Vs neither but EU Vs UK it makes sense to allow them a chance to make the choice, rather than holding them to the answer they gave to a different question. It's genuinely baffling to me that apparently intelligent people are unable to see this.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Your mixing up up the orange of legitimacy with the apple of realism. Folk are entitled to aspire to self rule (or to choose by whom they want to be ruled) whether it's Scotland, Cornwall or Pimlico. Which is the most realistic of these aspirations is entirely another matter.
At the very least, the gov't is lifting the lockdown at a time deaths have never been lower (since lockdown).
As Panarama will show tonight hospitals now have to get back to normal and start treating people with other illnesses
There is an absolutely foreseeable scandal on the way, perhaps next year, when the BBC and Guardian together with the popular press start highlighting dying people who were not properly diagnosed/referred by GPs between March and July (and after) because millions of people who should have been seen were talked to over the phone, and thousands who were referred were dealt with likewise by consultants.
I personally know of cases where it is obvious that someone should have been looked at but was not. In most cases (99%?) of course it will be OK. But 1% of a million is 10,000 people - and that's enough to keep the press and media going for months.
At that point people may stop clapping the NHS quite so loudly. SKS will be missing an opening if he is unqualified in his support for the medics.
Exactly, I have been saying this for weeks. The NHS is so under used at the moment, doctors and nurses are going to work and are doing nothing (my wife and daughter are both nurses) There are hundreds of closed wards and sick people are not being seen.
The biggest culprits are local surgeries. They are still locked up and people think they are closed and those that try to get an appointment with a GP are told to go and see the pharmacist. It really is terrible what is going on.
The EU is obviously not a "ventilator producer", but businesses which operate from EU member states are doing quite well. There is a lot of demand from Brazil, Mexico, the Gulf states and others. I've heard that Dräger are even still delivering to the US, although the Orange One has said they have them in abundance.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
The EU is obviously not a "ventilator producer", but businesses which operate from EU member states are doing quite well. There is a lot of demand from Brazil, Mexico, the Gulf states and others. I've heard that Dräger are even still delivering to the US, although the Orange One has said they have them in abundance.
I think he's referring to the scheme to supply EU member states.
We’re not going to agree so there’s little point in boring others. We come fundamentally different perspectives.
I believe that Parliament derives its authority from the people. Most of the time that works in the way that you believe.
However the key exceptions are around constitutional affairs: the “rules of the game”.
In order to fundamentally change the rules of the game, likely in perpetuity, the government has to seek direct instruction from the people. And once that instruction is given then it is bound to implement the wishes of the people (in principle, not in detail).
This, the 2017 parliament could not have overturned the 2016 instruction to leave the EU. However they could have approved a BINO/EEA+ model as that was within their authority.
In 2014 the Scottish electorate was asked if they wanted to leave the Union. They said no. That needs to be respected. There will come a point when it is reasonable to ask again - I think 20 years but 25 is just as reasonable. 40 is too long. 7 is too short.
You would be right, but for Brexit. The 2014 referendum was fought on the basis that leaving the UK meant leaving the EU too, at least for several years. The Scottish electorate voted against leaving the UK and the EU by 55:45. In 2016 they voted against leaving the EU by 62:38 (suggesting more support for EU membership than UK membership of course). But they are now outside the EU. This is a material change in the circumstances under which the 2014 referendum was fought, one which the Scottish people did not ask for. Since the choice is no longer EU+UK Vs neither but EU Vs UK it makes sense to allow them a chance to make the choice, rather than holding them to the answer they gave to a different question. It's genuinely baffling to me that apparently intelligent people are unable to see this.
There’s no point having this debate. People (with the notable exception of @Philip_Thompson) simply modify their “principals” in accordance with the outcome they want.
Yeah, let’s take one old CPAP machine, a CAT scanner, some docs found online and a factory that normally makes engines for racing cars.
Add together with a whole load of people up for a challenge, and churn out 10,000 CPAP machines within a month, certified for medical use - then open source the whole thing so the rest of the world can benefit from the work.
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.
No it's not. That's flawed.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
I would say if you roll a dice 6 times the chance of rolling at least one 6 is approx 2/3 (66%).
It is indeed, but you also have a greater than 50% chance of having a six by the 4th roll of the dice (52% chance by roll 4).
People who leap from the odds and change that into the number of events are making a terrible failure of logic most of the time.
Tick.
Here's a question I like to pose -
If you were offered 4/1 odds on tails for a single coin toss - fair coin fair toss - what % of your net wealth would you stake on it?
You should wager 37.5% of your total wealth (Kelly criterion) but most people would wager far far less.
That feels about right. What if it's 10/1? Does that take it beyond 50%?
No. As the payoff goes to infinity, the kelly criterion heads to 50%.
Right. Not familiar with "Kelly" but that feels spot on as a theory. And (yes) almost everyone would go under the "right" stake. Including me.
At 10/1 I would be staking a third. At 4/1 a fifth.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
And presumably you'd be happy for them to be listened to as much as Scotland was after the 2016 referendum.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
You’re right. Northumberland should attempt to join an Independent Scotland.
The Netherlands looks interesting. Lots of cases, and deaths, early on, a relatively late and loose lockdown, very steep fall from the peak and recently small numbers. And nobody at all wearing masks.
I am sure that there is another committee meeting just next month.
It's incredible that those same people who were completely wrong about this scheme, were so wrong about the PPE scheme are now saying the government should join the EU vaccine scheme. The same types who post the same self-congratulatory rubbish about how they know exactly how the negotiation is going to go and whenever the EU concedes they act as if it's a huge win for the EU.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
You’re right. Northumberland should attempt to join an Independent Scotland.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Your mixing up up the orange of legitimacy with the apple of realism. Folk are entitled to aspire to self rule (or to choose by whom they want tu be ruled) whether it's Scotland, Cornwall or Pimlico. Which is the most realistic of these aspirations is entirely another matter.
The other aspect is whether it is sensible or desirable for English politicians to make mischief by seeking to encourage secession of small parts of Scotland.
Britain has an inglorious record of encouraging such division. It would be farcical this time, rather than damaging, but I'd rather it didn't happen.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
You’re right. Northumberland should attempt to join an Independent Scotland.
Of course not given every MP in Northumberland represents a Unionist Party and every seat in the Scottish Borders is held by the Tories both should stay in the UK
The EU is obviously not a "ventilator producer", but businesses which operate from EU member states are doing quite well. There is a lot of demand from Brazil, Mexico, the Gulf states and others. I've heard that Dräger are even still delivering to the US, although the Orange One has said they have them in abundance.
I think he's referring to the scheme to supply EU member states.
I think it's obvious that the infection rates have subsided so much that there's no shortage of them in continental Europe (anymore).
I suspect (companies inside) the EU have been producing quite a lot of ventilators: Firstly, there are a lot of medical equipment companies in the bloc (from the very large, such as Philips) to hundreds of smaller firms. Secondly, this is the kind of light manufacturing that thrives in Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
The Netherlands looks interesting. Lots of cases, and deaths, early on, a relatively late and loose lockdown, very steep fall from the peak and recently small numbers. And nobody at all wearing masks.
And a substantially higher population density than even England. An awful lot of unknown unknowns still out there.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Your mixing up up the orange of legitimacy with the apple of realism. Folk are entitled to aspire to self rule (or to choose by whom they want to be ruled) whether it's Scotland, Cornwall or Pimlico. Which is the most realistic of these aspirations is entirely another matter.
But Scottish Independence did not seem very realistic in the 1950s despite the existence of the SNP. Cornwall already has its own Merbyon Kernow independence party which makes an impact not too different to that made by the SNP at the 1955 General Election.
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.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
And sorry to hit you with a cliche but "advisors advise, ministers decide".
Its not true that we do apart from Belgium, I've already called you out on that. Do we need a list?
We don't even have statistics from a great many countries.
Only Belgium is worse than us on deaths per population according to the comprehensive looking table I saw in The Times Of London newspaper on Saturday.
Perhaps you can give us reliable death figures from the likes of New York, Iran, Brazil etc so we can compare?
The Times Of London, as I said. I can't improve on that. Of course in the fullness of time our relative performance might look less terrible than it does now. Let's hope not, though, since that is tantamount to wishing future harm on others or to discover unreported past harm to others.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
Not sure that partition worked out so well in the Irish case. My personal view is that if Scotland decides to leave then the whole of Scotland should leave, you simply dissolve the Act of Union and the whole country leaves like the whole country joined. (If you want to start keeping in the subterritories that don't vote to leave then please allow Scotland and London to stay in the EU). If any part of Scotland subsequently decides it wants to be part of England instead then that can be decided later, once a clear separatist majority exists in that territory and subject to referendum. Deciding the question at the same time as Scottish independence would look like an English land grab or punishment for leaving.
Agreed, in the same way as Brexit needs to be resolved and implemented before talk of a second Scottish referendum.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
And presumably you'd be happy for them to be listened to as much as Scotland was after the 2016 referendum.
If Scotland was given an indyref2 and voted Yes it would have had it say and the Scottish Borders should be allowed the same
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.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
And sorry to hit you with a cliche but "advisors advise, ministers decide".
Its not true that we do apart from Belgium, I've already called you out on that. Do we need a list?
We don't even have statistics from a great many countries.
Only Belgium is worse than us on deaths per population according to the comprehensive looking table I saw in The Times Of London newspaper on Saturday.
And AIUI Belgium is better than us if you look at excess deaths overall, per population.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
Not sure that partition worked out so well in the Irish case. My personal view is that if Scotland decides to leave then the whole of Scotland should leave, you simply dissolve the Act of Union and the whole country leaves like the whole country joined. (If you want to start keeping in the subterritories that don't vote to leave then please allow Scotland and London to stay in the EU). If any part of Scotland subsequently decides it wants to be part of England instead then that can be decided later, once a clear separatist majority exists in that territory and subject to referendum. Deciding the question at the same time as Scottish independence would look like an English land grab or punishment for leaving.
Agreed, in the same way as Brexit needs to be resolved and implemented before talk of a second Scottish referendum.
Exactly, if Starmer wins the next general election the whole UK could be back in the single market within 5 years
I suspect (companies inside) the EU have been producing quite a lot of ventilators: Firstly, there are a lot of medical equipment companies in the bloc (from the very large, such as Philips) to hundreds of smaller firms. Secondly, this is the kind of light manufacturing that thrives in Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
You’re right. Northumberland should attempt to join an Independent Scotland.
Of course not given every MP in Northumberland represents a Unionist Party and every seat in the Scottish Borders is held by the Tories both should stay in the UK
By your logic Scotland and London should still be in the EU.
About from lost tax revenue what does it actually achieve.
It provides a support for house prices, protecting the banks from losses on mortgage loans, and encouraging housebuilders to keep building.
Is that worth the cost?
Dunno, but I can see the case for it if you felt the status quo in the housing market before Covid was fine, and you only need to tide things over temporarily before they return to normal.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Your mixing up up the orange of legitimacy with the apple of realism. Folk are entitled to aspire to self rule (or to choose by whom they want to be ruled) whether it's Scotland, Cornwall or Pimlico. Which is the most realistic of these aspirations is entirely another matter.
But Scottish Independence did not seem very realistic in the 1950s despite the existence of the SNP. Cornwall already has its own Merbyon Kernow independence party which makes an impact not too different to that made by the SNP at the 1955 General Election.
News just in: we're no longer in the 1950s. If you're predicting a 70 year journey to the birth of a glorious rUKanian Dumfries & Galloway, fair enough.
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.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
And sorry to hit you with a cliche but "advisors advise, ministers decide".
So when they ignore advice to do something you agree with then they are taking responsibility and when they ignore it to do something you disagree with they are doing some great crime in your eyes.
I'm saying they (i) should be judged by results and (ii) should not try to palm off responsibility for decisions onto unelected advisors.
Of course (ii) is an obvious avenue - since they must make the challenging argument that a good decision led to a bad result - but imo it ought to be resisted.
But in this case the decision was to go into lockdown sooner than advised by the scientific advisors. Which completely undermines any argument that they should have gone even earlier than they did.
I guess this is the argument they will seek to make. But there were many people who at the time were calling for swifter, more decisive action. This was not like (say) the Global Bank Crash where it was one or two voices in the wilderness.
At the very least, the gov't is lifting the lockdown at a time deaths have never been lower (since lockdown).
As Panarama will show tonight hospitals now have to get back to normal and start treating people with other illnesses
There is an absolutely foreseeable scandal on the way, perhaps next year, when the BBC and Guardian together with the popular press start highlighting dying people who were not properly diagnosed/referred by GPs between March and July (and after) because millions of people who should have been seen were talked to over the phone, and thousands who were referred were dealt with likewise by consultants.
I personally know of cases where it is obvious that someone should have been looked at but was not. In most cases (99%?) of course it will be OK. But 1% of a million is 10,000 people - and that's enough to keep the press and media going for months.
At that point people may stop clapping the NHS quite so loudly. SKS will be missing an opening if he is unqualified in his support for the medics.
That’s what happens when people treat a healthcare system like a religion. It both becomes infallible and trends towards failure.
Not being posted to sign some new light onto things - each side will interpret as they wish. It is more to flag why Biden might hesitate about having Rice as his VP pick *
* I've put some money on Rice as a covering bet as she has a lot of pluses but this is the issue that worries me about putting more
That article is odd at best. Firstly, for its obsession with the 'deep state'. Secondly, for its claim that 'lying to congress' should not be a crime, if congress is 'hostile'. Which is a rather dangerous precedent to set.
If the Democratic deep state was real, wouldn't it have prevented Comey from re-opening the Clinton email scandal two weeks before the election?
I suspect (companies inside) the EU have been producing quite a lot of ventilators: Firstly, there are a lot of medical equipment companies in the bloc (from the very large, such as Philips) to hundreds of smaller firms. Secondly, this is the kind of light manufacturing that thrives in Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
That's different to the EU scheme, however.
The EU procurement scheme has somewhat lost its relevance because the curve of infection has been flattened that much, and the medical profession has learned that ventilation should only be used as the very last resort.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the idea was wrong.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
You’re right. Northumberland should attempt to join an Independent Scotland.
Of course not given every MP in Northumberland represents a Unionist Party and every seat in the Scottish Borders is held by the Tories both should stay in the UK
By your logic Scotland and London should still be in the EU.
And it is also interesting HYUFD accepts that there will be a referendum, and one won by the SNP and its allies, before the next UK general election. Which is a refreshing shift to democracy and [edit] fairness.
About from lost tax revenue what does it actually achieve.
It provides a support for house prices, protecting the banks from losses on mortgage loans, and encouraging housebuilders to keep building.
Is that worth the cost?
Dunno, but I can see the case for it if you felt the status quo in the housing market before Covid was fine, and you only need to tide things over temporarily before they return to normal.
I dislike it as every prop to the housing market becomes permanent as it's impossible to remove (see Help to Buy as an example)
Personally I see it as one final attempt to keep the market going (and get out) before reality sets in.
And reality is going to set in as a lot of people are going to be unemployed so won't be able to get a mortgage...
But then again I still believe we are in the recession that was never allowed to occur in 2007/9 with zombie companies destroying more viable businesses...
I suspect (companies inside) the EU have been producing quite a lot of ventilators: Firstly, there are a lot of medical equipment companies in the bloc (from the very large, such as Philips) to hundreds of smaller firms. Secondly, this is the kind of light manufacturing that thrives in Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
That's different to the EU scheme, however.
The EU procurement scheme has somewhat lost its relevance because the curve of infection has been flattened that much, and the medical profession has learned that ventilation should only be used as the very last resort.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the idea was wrong.
It was an overly bureaucratic scheme at a time when speed was necessary. The vaccine scheme will have the same issues. National governments are better equipped to handle emergencies.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
Not sure that partition worked out so well in the Irish case. My personal view is that if Scotland decides to leave then the whole of Scotland should leave, you simply dissolve the Act of Union and the whole country leaves like the whole country joined. (If you want to start keeping in the subterritories that don't vote to leave then please allow Scotland and London to stay in the EU). If any part of Scotland subsequently decides it wants to be part of England instead then that can be decided later, once a clear separatist majority exists in that territory and subject to referendum. Deciding the question at the same time as Scottish independence would look like an English land grab or punishment for leaving.
Agreed, in the same way as Brexit needs to be resolved and implemented before talk of a second Scottish referendum.
Brexit is resolved and is in the process of implementation. It will take at least a year to organise indyref2 so there's no reason not to start now. Better to leave the sinking ship before it takes on too much more water.
I suspect (companies inside) the EU have been producing quite a lot of ventilators: Firstly, there are a lot of medical equipment companies in the bloc (from the very large, such as Philips) to hundreds of smaller firms. Secondly, this is the kind of light manufacturing that thrives in Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
That's different to the EU scheme, however.
Agreed. I have no idea whether the EU scheme was a success or not. However, I suspect that (a) ventilator capacity has been broadly OK in both the UK and the EU, and (b) the EU scheme was a waste of time at best, an active distraction at worst.
I said at the time that history would be the guide: if we did noticeably worse than the EU for hospital deaths, due to lack of ventilator capacity, then we could regard our staying out of the scheme as a mistake.
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the UK government will not be criticised for its ventilator policy, but did make three - albeit large - missteps:
1. Returning people with CV-19 to care homes 2. Not stopping incoming flights 2. Locking down about a week later than they should have done
About from lost tax revenue what does it actually achieve.
It provides a support for house prices, protecting the banks from losses on mortgage loans, and encouraging housebuilders to keep building.
Is that worth the cost?
Dunno, but I can see the case for it if you felt the status quo in the housing market before Covid was fine, and you only need to tide things over temporarily before they return to normal.
If it takes effect from Wednesday Rishi will save me £2,400.
The only problem is, objectively, I do not require financial support. If anything my position has improved over the course of lockdown, plus I was able to secure the property for £17,000 less than asking price, largely due to COVID.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
You’re right. Northumberland should attempt to join an Independent Scotland.
Of course not given every MP in Northumberland represents a Unionist Party and every seat in the Scottish Borders is held by the Tories both should stay in the UK
By your logic Scotland and London should still be in the EU.
Not London as all its seats are still held by Unionist parties despite Brexit, however if Scotland were granted an independence referendum and voted Yes areas like the Scottish Borders which still have Unionist MPs and would likely vote No to independence should stay in the UK
About from lost tax revenue what does it actually achieve.
It provides a support for house prices, protecting the banks from losses on mortgage loans, and encouraging housebuilders to keep building.
Is that worth the cost?
Dunno, but I can see the case for it if you felt the status quo in the housing market before Covid was fine, and you only need to tide things over temporarily before they return to normal.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
Not sure that partition worked out so well in the Irish case. My personal view is that if Scotland decides to leave then the whole of Scotland should leave, you simply dissolve the Act of Union and the whole country leaves like the whole country joined. (If you want to start keeping in the subterritories that don't vote to leave then please allow Scotland and London to stay in the EU). If any part of Scotland subsequently decides it wants to be part of England instead then that can be decided later, once a clear separatist majority exists in that territory and subject to referendum. Deciding the question at the same time as Scottish independence would look like an English land grab or punishment for leaving.
Agreed, in the same way as Brexit needs to be resolved and implemented before talk of a second Scottish referendum.
Can you imagine Mr Johnson having the chutzpah to use that as an excuse for denying (as he would see it) a referendum?!
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
You’re right. Northumberland should attempt to join an Independent Scotland.
Of course not given every MP in Northumberland represents a Unionist Party and every seat in the Scottish Borders is held by the Tories both should stay in the UK
By your logic Scotland and London should still be in the EU.
And it is also interesting HYUFD accepts that there will be a referendum, and one won by the SNP and its allies, before the next UK general election. Which is a refreshing shift to democracy and [edit] fairness.
No I don't, I said in the next decade.
It was based on a PM Starmer granting an indyref after being elected PM in 2024 to an SNP majority at Holyrood and if Yes won it, the Tories will of course block indyref2 regardless until then
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
You’re right. Northumberland should attempt to join an Independent Scotland.
Of course not given every MP in Northumberland represents a Unionist Party and every seat in the Scottish Borders is held by the Tories both should stay in the UK
By your logic Scotland and London should still be in the EU.
Not London as all its seats are still held by Unionist parties despite Brexit, however if Scotland were granted an independence referendum and voted Yes areas like the Scottish Borders which still have Unionist MPs and would likely vote No to independence should stay in the UK
Without a referendum? My oh my. So UDS (Unilateral Declaration of Subjection) is a thing.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
You’re right. Northumberland should attempt to join an Independent Scotland.
Of course not given every MP in Northumberland represents a Unionist Party and every seat in the Scottish Borders is held by the Tories both should stay in the UK
By your logic Scotland and London should still be in the EU.
Not London as all its seats are still held by Unionist parties despite Brexit, however if Scotland were granted an independence referendum and voted Yes areas like the Scottish Borders which still have Unionist MPs and would likely vote No to independence should stay in the UK
Are you sure you aren't mixing the 2014 and 2017 referenda up?
What needs melted down is the policy. Scottish Universities have only managed to thrive on the back of English student's money cross subsidising Scottish students and the Scottish government. If that is now restricted Edinburgh, Glasgow, St Andrews and Heriot Watt are going to be in desperate trouble with large scale redundancies and loss of capability.
You should wager 37.5% of your total wealth (Kelly criterion) but most people would wager far far less.
That's not quite right. Kelly only applies if there is the prospect of a sufficient number of future betting gigs on which you can continue to bet (and on which you will know the true odds), and if your only objective is to maximise the final value of your portfolio, without caring about intermediate values.
If it's a one-off bet, then it's entirely a matter of your risk aversion and personal circumstances.
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
You’re right. Northumberland should attempt to join an Independent Scotland.
Of course not given every MP in Northumberland represents a Unionist Party and every seat in the Scottish Borders is held by the Tories both should stay in the UK
By your logic Scotland and London should still be in the EU.
And it is also interesting HYUFD accepts that there will be a referendum, and one won by the SNP and its allies, before the next UK general election. Which is a refreshing shift to democracy and [edit] fairness.
No I don't, I said in the next decade.
It was based on a PM Starmer granting an indyref after being elected PM in 2024 to an SNP majority at Holyrood and Yes winning it, the Tories will of course block indyref2 regardless until then
You said "given every MP in Northumberland represents a Unionist Party and every seat in the Scottish Borders is held by the Tories both should stay in the UK". That means the current Parliament. That means before the next GE.
I suspect (companies inside) the EU have been producing quite a lot of ventilators: Firstly, there are a lot of medical equipment companies in the bloc (from the very large, such as Philips) to hundreds of smaller firms. Secondly, this is the kind of light manufacturing that thrives in Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
That's different to the EU scheme, however.
Agreed. I have no idea whether the EU scheme was a success or not. However, I suspect that (a) ventilator capacity has been broadly OK in both the UK and the EU, and (b) the EU scheme was a waste of time at best, an active distraction at worst.
I said at the time that history would be the guide: if we did noticeably worse than the EU for hospital deaths, due to lack of ventilator capacity, then we could regard our staying out of the scheme as a mistake.
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the UK government will not be criticised for its ventilator policy, but did make three - albeit large - missteps:
1. Returning people with CV-19 to care homes 2. Not stopping incoming flights 2. Locking down about a week later than they should have done
About from lost tax revenue what does it actually achieve.
It provides a support for house prices, protecting the banks from losses on mortgage loans, and encouraging housebuilders to keep building.
Is that worth the cost?
Dunno, but I can see the case for it if you felt the status quo in the housing market before Covid was fine, and you only need to tide things over temporarily before they return to normal.
Help2propuphouseprices
Big chance for Starmer if this happens. The two Eds bottled it when help2buy and election was brought in by Osborne. Will Starmer take the government on over this?
I've just noticed that the Economist prediction for the Electoral College doesn't seem to account for Maine and Nebraska awarding Electoral College votes by Congressional District.
Although unlikely, there are some scenarios where Trump winning ME-2 is enough to make the difference. Thought it was worth pointing out.
Good spot. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Your mixing up up the orange of legitimacy with the apple of realism. Folk are entitled to aspire to self rule (or to choose by whom they want to be ruled) whether it's Scotland, Cornwall or Pimlico. Which is the most realistic of these aspirations is entirely another matter.
But Scottish Independence did not seem very realistic in the 1950s despite the existence of the SNP. Cornwall already has its own Merbyon Kernow independence party which makes an impact not too different to that made by the SNP at the 1955 General Election.
News just in: we're no longer in the 1950s. If you're predicting a 70 year journey to the birth of a glorious rUKanian Dumfries & Galloway, fair enough.
Another newsflash - we are not always going to be in 2020!. The main point is that what appears as a realistic option does change over time.Were the SNP to win a Referendum in the near term, the result would not bind future voters. Were there subsequently to be disastrous economic consequences for Scotland relative to what happens elsewhere in the UK, it is not too difficult to imagine a crossparty movement developing with a message of 'we made a big mistake' or 'We were conned!'.If a pro-Union majority was then elected at Holyrood a further Referendum could then follow. There would certainly be no more obligation falling on No voters to meekly accept the result of a Yes Vote anymore than Yes voters accepted the 2014 outcome.The question would only be resolved by a massive 70% plus Yes vote similar to the scale of the Yes to Devolution vote of Autumn 1997. How likely is that?
I suspect (companies inside) the EU have been producing quite a lot of ventilators: Firstly, there are a lot of medical equipment companies in the bloc (from the very large, such as Philips) to hundreds of smaller firms. Secondly, this is the kind of light manufacturing that thrives in Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
That's different to the EU scheme, however.
The EU procurement scheme has somewhat lost its relevance because the curve of infection has been flattened that much, and the medical profession has learned that ventilation should only be used as the very last resort.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the idea was wrong.
It was an overly bureaucratic scheme at a time when speed was necessary. The vaccine scheme will have the same issues. National governments are better equipped to handle emergencies.
Do you have any detailed knowledge how exactly it was "overly bureaucratic"? There were shortages in Italy and Spain, three months ago. The producers have ramped up production, but that was much too late for these shortages anyway. So how could any nationally based procurement schemes have made them be delivered in time?
On vaccines, you can take an "us first" approach on principle. That's your choice. Others see merit in a more cooperational and collectivist approach.
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.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
And sorry to hit you with a cliche but "advisors advise, ministers decide".
Its not true that we do apart from Belgium, I've already called you out on that. Do we need a list?
We don't even have statistics from a great many countries.
Only Belgium is worse than us on deaths per population according to the comprehensive looking table I saw in The Times Of London newspaper on Saturday.
And AIUI Belgium is better than us if you look at excess deaths overall, per population.
Really? OK then we're rock bottom, since that imo is the gold standard.
I've just noticed that the Economist prediction for the Electoral College doesn't seem to account for Maine and Nebraska awarding Electoral College votes by Congressional District.
Although unlikely, there are some scenarios where Trump winning ME-2 is enough to make the difference. Thought it was worth pointing out.
Good spot. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?
Well that's what you get when a UK-based publication decides to make their own model. Quite why they bothered is beyond me.
About from lost tax revenue what does it actually achieve.
It provides a support for house prices, protecting the banks from losses on mortgage loans, and encouraging housebuilders to keep building.
Is that worth the cost?
Dunno, but I can see the case for it if you felt the status quo in the housing market before Covid was fine, and you only need to tide things over temporarily before they return to normal.
Help2propuphouseprices
Big chance for Starmer if this happens. The two Eds bottled it when help2buy and election was brought in by Osborne. Will Starmer take the government on over this?
It benefits me in the round as a homeowner (Not as directly as @TheWhiteRabbit !) but I'll tell the truth as I see it.
We should be able to move faster than the EU, simply because we don't have twenty something countries putting their oars in.
That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if neither us or the EU gets over the line this year because (a) negotiations always take longer than expected, and (b) CV-19 means that there are unlikely to be (m)any in person meetings this year.
I suspect (companies inside) the EU have been producing quite a lot of ventilators: Firstly, there are a lot of medical equipment companies in the bloc (from the very large, such as Philips) to hundreds of smaller firms. Secondly, this is the kind of light manufacturing that thrives in Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
That's different to the EU scheme, however.
Agreed. I have no idea whether the EU scheme was a success or not. However, I suspect that (a) ventilator capacity has been broadly OK in both the UK and the EU, and (b) the EU scheme was a waste of time at best, an active distraction at worst.
I said at the time that history would be the guide: if we did noticeably worse than the EU for hospital deaths, due to lack of ventilator capacity, then we could regard our staying out of the scheme as a mistake.
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the UK government will not be criticised for its ventilator policy, but did make three - albeit large - missteps:
1. Returning people with CV-19 to care homes 2. Not stopping incoming flights 2. Locking down about a week later than they should have done
There will only be a referendum under Boris (or Sunak) if it looks likely that NO will win (and even then very improbable, everyone now knows referendums are terrifically unpredictable, and best avoided).
If the polls are pointing to YES then the argument will be: feck, it looks probable that the Union is lost, our only hope is refusing a vote and hoping something happens after 2024, when a new PM will have to make the decision
The argument that doing this will only push Scotland further to Yes doesn't work, because we're in the scenario where Yes is likely anyway, so what the heck
Boris will say No. Sturgeon will get angry. Then what? There won't be an UDI. It will be stalemate. And Boris will hope that events come to his rescue in the ensuing years
What needs melted down is the policy. Scottish Universities have only managed to thrive on the back of English student's money cross subsidising Scottish students and the Scottish government. If that is now restricted Edinburgh, Glasgow, St Andrews and Heriot Watt are going to be in desperate trouble with large scale redundancies and loss of capability.
When you compare Scottish and English Universities nowadays it's remarkable how poor the Scottish Unis seem to look..
The £9250 every English student brings does mean that the English Unis have seriously upped their offerings..
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 would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
You’re right. Northumberland should attempt to join an Independent Scotland.
Of course not given every MP in Northumberland represents a Unionist Party and every seat in the Scottish Borders is held by the Tories both should stay in the UK
By your logic Scotland and London should still be in the EU.
And it is also interesting HYUFD accepts that there will be a referendum, and one won by the SNP and its allies, before the next UK general election. Which is a refreshing shift to democracy and [edit] fairness.
No I don't, I said in the next decade.
It was based on a PM Starmer granting an indyref after being elected PM in 2024 to an SNP majority at Holyrood and if Yes won it, the Tories will of course block indyref2 regardless until then
I suspect (companies inside) the EU have been producing quite a lot of ventilators: Firstly, there are a lot of medical equipment companies in the bloc (from the very large, such as Philips) to hundreds of smaller firms. Secondly, this is the kind of light manufacturing that thrives in Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
That's different to the EU scheme, however.
Agreed. I have no idea whether the EU scheme was a success or not. However, I suspect that (a) ventilator capacity has been broadly OK in both the UK and the EU, and (b) the EU scheme was a waste of time at best, an active distraction at worst.
I said at the time that history would be the guide: if we did noticeably worse than the EU for hospital deaths, due to lack of ventilator capacity, then we could regard our staying out of the scheme as a mistake.
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the UK government will not be criticised for its ventilator policy, but did make three - albeit large - missteps:
1. Returning people with CV-19 to care homes 2. Not stopping incoming flights 2. Locking down about a week later than they should have done
4. Masks.
Yes. Everyone should be wearing a mask when leaving the house. Everyone.
Follow the examples of everyone involved in sporting fixtures over the weekend, it’s really not that uncomfortable and does make a difference.
I've just noticed that the Economist prediction for the Electoral College doesn't seem to account for Maine and Nebraska awarding Electoral College votes by Congressional District.
Although unlikely, there are some scenarios where Trump winning ME-2 is enough to make the difference. Thought it was worth pointing out.
Good spot. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?
It's not moot either. ME-2 is probably on a knife-edge now, if anyone were to poll it (even today's Maine poll did not ask!).
I suspect (companies inside) the EU have been producing quite a lot of ventilators: Firstly, there are a lot of medical equipment companies in the bloc (from the very large, such as Philips) to hundreds of smaller firms. Secondly, this is the kind of light manufacturing that thrives in Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
That's different to the EU scheme, however.
Agreed. I have no idea whether the EU scheme was a success or not. However, I suspect that (a) ventilator capacity has been broadly OK in both the UK and the EU, and (b) the EU scheme was a waste of time at best, an active distraction at worst.
I said at the time that history would be the guide: if we did noticeably worse than the EU for hospital deaths, due to lack of ventilator capacity, then we could regard our staying out of the scheme as a mistake.
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the UK government will not be criticised for its ventilator policy, but did make three - albeit large - missteps:
1. Returning people with CV-19 to care homes 2. Not stopping incoming flights 2. Locking down about a week later than they should have done
Agree with all of that, on the EU schemes there is clearly not a lot of mileage in them.
I also agree with where the government went wrong. Though I think they aren't as bad as people are making out. It's a depressing thought but people dying of COVID in care homes is bringing forwards the inevitable pretty much all cases and a huge number will only be by a few months.
I'm actually beginning to wonder whether the government has accidentally struck upon a golden formula, there seems to have been just enough infection among the wider community to reduce transmission rates but the overall death tally isn't anywhere near the 500k that was feared.
I think part of the reason every time we see events like VE day, blatant breaking of lockdown and social distancing rules there isn't a huge spike in cases that is expected. I'm pretty sure that those guys in Soho also won't cause a huge spike in new cases.
Just like they live with all the other threats to human existence we haven;t shut down our lives for. Car crashes, gun violence cancer and falling down stairs amongst others.
I suspect (companies inside) the EU have been producing quite a lot of ventilators: Firstly, there are a lot of medical equipment companies in the bloc (from the very large, such as Philips) to hundreds of smaller firms. Secondly, this is the kind of light manufacturing that thrives in Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
That's different to the EU scheme, however.
Agreed. I have no idea whether the EU scheme was a success or not. However, I suspect that (a) ventilator capacity has been broadly OK in both the UK and the EU, and (b) the EU scheme was a waste of time at best, an active distraction at worst.
I said at the time that history would be the guide: if we did noticeably worse than the EU for hospital deaths, due to lack of ventilator capacity, then we could regard our staying out of the scheme as a mistake.
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the UK government will not be criticised for its ventilator policy, but did make three - albeit large - missteps:
1. Returning people with CV-19 to care homes 2. Not stopping incoming flights 2. Locking down about a week later than they should have done
I suspect (companies inside) the EU have been producing quite a lot of ventilators: Firstly, there are a lot of medical equipment companies in the bloc (from the very large, such as Philips) to hundreds of smaller firms. Secondly, this is the kind of light manufacturing that thrives in Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
That's different to the EU scheme, however.
Agreed. I have no idea whether the EU scheme was a success or not. However, I suspect that (a) ventilator capacity has been broadly OK in both the UK and the EU, and (b) the EU scheme was a waste of time at best, an active distraction at worst.
I said at the time that history would be the guide: if we did noticeably worse than the EU for hospital deaths, due to lack of ventilator capacity, then we could regard our staying out of the scheme as a mistake.
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the UK government will not be criticised for its ventilator policy, but did make three - albeit large - missteps:
1. Returning people with CV-19 to care homes 2. Not stopping incoming flights 2. Locking down about a week later than they should have done
I suspect (companies inside) the EU have been producing quite a lot of ventilators: Firstly, there are a lot of medical equipment companies in the bloc (from the very large, such as Philips) to hundreds of smaller firms. Secondly, this is the kind of light manufacturing that thrives in Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
That's different to the EU scheme, however.
Agreed. I have no idea whether the EU scheme was a success or not. However, I suspect that (a) ventilator capacity has been broadly OK in both the UK and the EU, and (b) the EU scheme was a waste of time at best, an active distraction at worst.
I said at the time that history would be the guide: if we did noticeably worse than the EU for hospital deaths, due to lack of ventilator capacity, then we could regard our staying out of the scheme as a mistake.
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the UK government will not be criticised for its ventilator policy, but did make three - albeit large - missteps:
1. Returning people with CV-19 to care homes 2. Not stopping incoming flights 2. Locking down about a week later than they should have done
Very large errors, how many tens of thousands deaths due to them? We had the benefit of a couple of weeks after Italy to get our decisions right. The US had the benefit of extra time after us and they made even worse decisions.
Comments
If any part of Scotland subsequently decides it wants to be part of England instead then that can be decided later, once a clear separatist majority exists in that territory and subject to referendum. Deciding the question at the same time as Scottish independence would look like an English land grab or punishment for leaving.
Although unlikely, there are some scenarios where Trump winning ME-2 is enough to make the difference. Thought it was worth pointing out.
I personally know of cases where it is obvious that someone should have been looked at but was not. In most cases (99%?) of course it will be OK. But 1% of a million is 10,000 people - and that's enough to keep the press and media going for months.
At that point people may stop clapping the NHS quite so loudly. SKS will be missing an opening if he is unqualified in his support for the medics.
The other sovereign government on these islands, the one in Dublin, took its lead from the World Health Organisation. The Irish government cancelled the planned national celebration of St Patrick’s Day and started the process of shutting down pubs and social gatherings on 9 March. In the fortnight that followed, Britain allowed Liverpool to play Atlético Madrid at Anfield, in front of a crowd that included 3,000 fans from Spain, many of whom travelled from Madrid, a city already ravaged by the virus. The Cheltenham racing festival went ahead on 10-13 March. Public transport remained packed. Pubs and restaurants stayed open.
Why the difference? It was not that the Irish government was particularly brilliant, merely that it was not blinded by an obsession that there should be some special Irish way of facing the threat. It grasped the meaning of the “pan” in pandemic: all, every, whole. This was something happening to humanity, not to individual nations. But in London, the government (and to some extent its scientific advisers) seemed to be reading a book called Why Be Normal When You Can Be British?
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/07/fatal-delusions-boris-johnson
Regardless of whatever turmoil in the world - even if Trump wins California in November - this is something to cling onto. It will never let you down.
The 2014 referendum was fought on the basis that leaving the UK meant leaving the EU too, at least for several years. The Scottish electorate voted against leaving the UK and the EU by 55:45.
In 2016 they voted against leaving the EU by 62:38 (suggesting more support for EU membership than UK membership of course). But they are now outside the EU.
This is a material change in the circumstances under which the 2014 referendum was fought, one which the Scottish people did not ask for.
Since the choice is no longer EU+UK Vs neither but EU Vs UK it makes sense to allow them a chance to make the choice, rather than holding them to the answer they gave to a different question.
It's genuinely baffling to me that apparently intelligent people are unable to see this.
The biggest culprits are local surgeries. They are still locked up and people think they are closed and those that try to get an appointment with a GP are told to go and see the pharmacist. It really is terrible what is going on.
Add together with a whole load of people up for a challenge, and churn out 10,000 CPAP machines within a month, certified for medical use - then open source the whole thing so the rest of the world can benefit from the work.
This was an astonishing achievement, and was merely one of dozens of similar projects in the UK
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ij3g8kscdeA
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1280138672071991296?s=20
You'd hope so.....
At 10/1 I would be staking a third. At 4/1 a fifth.
Britain has an inglorious record of encouraging such division. It would be farcical this time, rather than damaging, but I'd rather it didn't happen.
Very well dealt with by Keir, hit Johnson for six
An awful lot of unknown unknowns still out there.
Is that worth the cost?
Dunno, but I can see the case for it if you felt the status quo in the housing market before Covid was fine, and you only need to tide things over temporarily before they return to normal.
If you're predicting a 70 year journey to the birth of a glorious rUKanian Dumfries & Galloway, fair enough.
If the Democratic deep state was real, wouldn't it have prevented Comey from re-opening the Clinton email scandal two weeks before the election?
That doesn't necessarily mean that the idea was wrong.
Personally I see it as one final attempt to keep the market going (and get out) before reality sets in.
And reality is going to set in as a lot of people are going to be unemployed so won't be able to get a mortgage...
But then again I still believe we are in the recession that was never allowed to occur in 2007/9 with zombie companies destroying more viable businesses...
I said at the time that history would be the guide: if we did noticeably worse than the EU for hospital deaths, due to lack of ventilator capacity, then we could regard our staying out of the scheme as a mistake.
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that the UK government will not be criticised for its ventilator policy, but did make three - albeit large - missteps:
1. Returning people with CV-19 to care homes
2. Not stopping incoming flights
2. Locking down about a week later than they should have done
The only problem is, objectively, I do not require financial support. If anything my position has improved over the course of lockdown, plus I was able to secure the property for £17,000 less than asking price, largely due to COVID.
It was based on a PM Starmer granting an indyref after being elected PM in 2024 to an SNP majority at Holyrood and if Yes won it, the Tories will of course block indyref2 regardless until then
So UDS (Unilateral Declaration of Subjection) is a thing.
If it's a one-off bet, then it's entirely a matter of your risk aversion and personal circumstances.
There were shortages in Italy and Spain, three months ago. The producers have ramped up production, but that was much too late for these shortages anyway. So how could any nationally based procurement schemes have made them be delivered in time?
On vaccines, you can take an "us first" approach on principle. That's your choice. Others see merit in a more cooperational and collectivist approach.
That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if neither us or the EU gets over the line this year because (a) negotiations always take longer than expected, and (b) CV-19 means that there are unlikely to be (m)any in person meetings this year.
If the polls are pointing to YES then the argument will be: feck, it looks probable that the Union is lost, our only hope is refusing a vote and hoping something happens after 2024, when a new PM will have to make the decision
The argument that doing this will only push Scotland further to Yes doesn't work, because we're in the scenario where Yes is likely anyway, so what the heck
Boris will say No. Sturgeon will get angry. Then what? There won't be an UDI. It will be stalemate. And Boris will hope that events come to his rescue in the ensuing years
The £9250 every English student brings does mean that the English Unis have seriously upped their offerings..
Follow the examples of everyone involved in sporting fixtures over the weekend, it’s really not that uncomfortable and does make a difference.
https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1280148412210561025?s=20
I also agree with where the government went wrong. Though I think they aren't as bad as people are making out. It's a depressing thought but people dying of COVID in care homes is bringing forwards the inevitable pretty much all cases and a huge number will only be by a few months.
I'm actually beginning to wonder whether the government has accidentally struck upon a golden formula, there seems to have been just enough infection among the wider community to reduce transmission rates but the overall death tally isn't anywhere near the 500k that was feared.
I think part of the reason every time we see events like VE day, blatant breaking of lockdown and social distancing rules there isn't a huge spike in cases that is expected. I'm pretty sure that those guys in Soho also won't cause a huge spike in new cases.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/breaking-david-starkey-apologises-horrific-22309875#comments-section
Whether it's 'good enough' is left an an exercise for the reader I suppose as ever.
I do not seek sympathy, just want to say Fuck me this year is the absolute PITS
I hate 2020
We had the benefit of a couple of weeks after Italy to get our decisions right. The US had the benefit of extra time after us and they made even worse decisions.