@MaxPB project fear just isn’t going to work this time.
Setting aside for one moment all the positives and negatives both of Brexit and Scexit, one gathers the impression that the next vote on the latter will end up going the same way as the first vote on on the former: a majority has basically made up its mind that it doesn't like political union and, when push comes to shove, will not be dissuaded from ending it. Whether either process will end well or not, only time will tell.
Of course, one key difference between these processes is that, in the longer term, Brexit is probably reversible, assuming that the EU continues to hold together. Scexit isn't.
In other developments, the Covid hospitalisation figure is now down to 1,001, so I think there's a decent chance that my prediction from last week - that it'll be down into three figures by Thursday - is liable to be proven correct. A little piece of good news, at least.
If you read the press on the Tory attitude to indyref2, one thing comes over very clear: Boris is going to say no to indyref2 under his watch, partly BECAUSE there is a significant risk it could be lost.
Even if Sturgeon wins 98% of the Holyrood votes, he will say No, because he does not want to be the PM that lost the union.
Ironically, the one way Sturgeon would get her vote in 2022 (say) is if the polls indicated a big NO vote, but then, of course, she would not want inyref2, herself.
A sweet paradox.
So the vote will be after 2024, under PM Starmer or Sunak. Unionists will hope that something will come along to save them interim, nationalists will hope that refusing a vote will have stoked even more grievance, guaranteeing YES.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
The problem is we are not in control of our own destiny, we rely on crumbs from England as they choose what we get and where we have to spend most of the pittance they send back to us.
Dont generalise your assertion was scottish pupils were disadvantaged vs english ones.
I asserted its your own fault as education is devolved and showed your funding excuse to be pure poppycock.
Everything about education except funding is a devolved matter. Given you get given higher per pupil funding that english pupils then if scottish pupils are still disadvantaged it must be down to Holyrood.
The fact instead you try to ramble proves you have no argument here. I support scottish independence but crying "Its the english" every time someone highlights an issue might just possibly be the fault of holyrood stops you scots actually trying to sort that issue out
It's why I would be very happy to see Scotland leave. The reality would be fascinating to watch as the SNP tore itself apart.
I think the SNP would either rebrand or dissolve after independence.
To be "nationalist" once sovereignty is achieved is no longer a good look.
It isn't a very good look before either.
I'm with you on nationalism in general - I find it malign - but one must surely make an exception for movements such as the SNP and Catalonia where the goal is not "making XYZ great again" but creating XYZ in the first place.
Are you opposed to, say, Tibetan nationalism, or that of any of the countries of the USSR that weren't Russia? Is it wrong that Norway and Poland are countries? It seems to broad a category of things to be monolithically for or against.
I agree you can't have iron rules on this. Case by case - but in general I'm more likely to be favourable to nationalist movements seeking to establish a new sovereign country than those seeking to radically change a country that is already established. That's the distinction I'm drawing. Not hard and fast but don't you think it's a meaningful distinction?
Perhaps we need to define our terms here. Nationalism which is not about establishing a new country, or what you might call patriotism gone wrong, is pretty pointless and pretty hateful. What you are talking about is separatism (although that sounds derogatory) and that's a case by case call about how long ago and in what circumstances the merger or takeover occurred. As for genuinely new, new countries there's a lot of contexts in which they would look spectacularly good in theory and, I'm pretty sure, yield untold misery in practise: e.g. partition NZ and Australia and give half back to the original inhabitants, split the USA three ways whiteys/AAs/original inhabitants, etc.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
I think with respect that is confusing 2 things. rUK made it crystal clear to the market that it stood behind all UK debt. That is an entirely different question from whether Scotland would be expected by them to pay a share of it.
The problem is we are not in control of our own destiny, we rely on crumbs from England as they choose what we get and where we have to spend most of the pittance they send back to us.
Dont generalise your assertion was scottish pupils were disadvantaged vs english ones.
I asserted its your own fault as education is devolved and showed your funding excuse to be pure poppycock.
Everything about education except funding is a devolved matter. Given you get given higher per pupil funding that english pupils then if scottish pupils are still disadvantaged it must be down to Holyrood.
The fact instead you try to ramble proves you have no argument here. I support scottish independence but crying "Its the english" every time someone highlights an issue might just possibly be the fault of holyrood stops you scots actually trying to sort that issue out
It's why I would be very happy to see Scotland leave. The reality would be fascinating to watch as the SNP tore itself apart.
I think the SNP would either rebrand or dissolve after independence.
To be "nationalist" once sovereignty is achieved is no longer a good look.
It isn't a very good look before either.
I'm with you on nationalism in general - I find it malign - but one must surely make an exception for movements such as the SNP and Catalonia where the goal is not "making XYZ great again" but creating XYZ in the first place.
Are you opposed to, say, Tibetan nationalism, or that of any of the countries of the USSR that weren't Russia? Is it wrong that Norway and Poland are countries? It seems to broad a category of things to be monolithically for or against.
I agree you can't have iron rules on this. Case by case - but in general I'm more likely to be favourable to nationalist movements seeking to establish a new sovereign country than those seeking to radically change a country that is already established. That's the distinction I'm drawing. Not hard and fast but don't you think it's a meaningful distinction?
Perhaps we need to define our terms here. Nationalism which is not about establishing a new country, or what you might call patriotism gone wrong, is pretty pointless and pretty hateful. What you are talking about is separatism (although that sounds derogatory) and that's a case by case call about how long ago and in what circumstances the merger or takeover occurred. As for genuinely new, new countries there's a lot of contexts in which they would look spectacularly good in theory and, I'm pretty sure, yield untold misery in practise: e.g. partition NZ and Australia and give half back to the original inhabitants, split the USA three ways whiteys/AAs/original inhabitants, etc.
I find interesting the distinction in Spanich between independista and nationalista.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
If that's what helps you sleep at night then, sure.
The sooner Scotland gets to control its own destiny and pay its own bills the better.
Yes, but in what currency?
A Scottish Pound makes the most sense to me. Like the Irish had pre-Euro.
What they call it is pretty much irrelevant. The important thing is who stands behind it.
The Scottish treasury, yet another halfwit who does not understand how countries run and thinks only Scotland in the whole world cannot have a treasury. How thick can you be , our share of all the loot from Bank of UK will be deposited in our new Treasury and we will run just like the 200 or so other countries in the world run, FFS think before you write such crap.
You want a large share of the UK’s IOUs?
That’s generous of you.
We will be debt free and the English unionist Nat West Bank will never be near being the central bank.
An independent Scotland would get no share of assets unless you also took on a share of debts.
I don't know why that is even controversial. That or some trade off for it would be part of the cost of independence. Untangling such a longstanding union will be complicated and involve difficulty - it was bad enough some Brexiteers pretending it would all be easy without people pretending the same with Sindy, which is much more complicated. There's no need to blow smoke up people's arses about such things, I'd be astonished if it would persuade someone who has made the switch to be an Indy supporter to change their mind.
The reason Salmond failed was because ultimately, he wasn’t being truthful about these sort of trade offs and everyone who was not already a rabid nationalist could see that. It meant that either he didn’t know what he was talking about, or he was lying, and in neither case did he command conviction.
The question at the next referendum is whether people will care, or whether they will conclude, like the Irish, that although they would be worse off financially independence would still be preferable.
Scotland was full of posters the last time boasting how much public spending could increase once we had our own budget, how many more teachers, doctors and nurses we could have. It was unmitigated crap and thankfully the majority did not believe it although depressingly many did.
I really don't believe that the SNP will be able to run such arguments again. If we went independent we would be looking at cuts in public spending of around 20% to balance the budget. How many hospitals, schools and roads is independence worth?
For those to whom this is their Valhalla none of this matters but I think that they are outnumbered by those conned into believing the lies in the Scottish Government's White paper.
I think though that Brexit has been very toxic in Scotland. I'm just speculating but perhaps the Scots quite liked some decisions affecting them coming from Brussels and not London.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
If that's what helps you sleep at night then, sure.
I was sepaking of the formal debt - gilts, whatever - issued to the money markets, which is what was being discussed.
I would expect the Treasury to establish some sort of separate debt instrument with the new Scotland, as noted in an earlier posting.
The sooner Scotland gets to control its own destiny and pay its own bills the better.
Yes, but in what currency?
A Scottish Pound makes the most sense to me. Like the Irish had pre-Euro.
What they call it is pretty much irrelevant. The important thing is who stands behind it.
The Scottish treasury, yet another halfwit who does not understand how countries run and thinks only Scotland in the whole world cannot have a treasury. How thick can you be , our share of all the loot from Bank of UK will be deposited in our new Treasury and we will run just like the 200 or so other countries in the world run, FFS think before you write such crap.
You want a large share of the UK’s IOUs?
That’s generous of you.
We will be debt free and the English unionist Nat West Bank will never be near being the central bank.
An independent Scotland would get no share of assets unless you also took on a share of debts.
I don't know why that is even controversial. That or some trade off for it would be part of the cost of independence. Untangling such a longstanding union will be complicated and involve difficulty - it was bad enough some Brexiteers pretending it would all be easy without people pretending the same with Sindy, which is much more complicated. There's no need to blow smoke up people's arses about such things, I'd be astonished if it would persuade someone who has made the switch to be an Indy supporter to change their mind.
The reason Salmond failed was because ultimately, he wasn’t being truthful about these sort of trade offs and everyone who was not already a rabid nationalist could see that. It meant that either he didn’t know what he was talking about, or he was lying, and in neither case did he command conviction.
The question at the next referendum is whether people will care, or whether they will conclude, like the Irish, that although they would be worse off financially independence would still be preferable.
Scotland was full of posters the last time boasting how much public spending could increase once we had our own budget, how many more teachers, doctors and nurses we could have. It was unmitigated crap and thankfully the majority did not believe it although depressingly many did.
I really don't believe that the SNP will be able to run such arguments again. If we went independent we would be looking at cuts in public spending of around 20% to balance the budget. How many hospitals, schools and roads is independence worth?
For those to whom this is their Valhalla none of this matters but I think that they are outnumbered by those conned into believing the lies in the Scottish Government's White paper.
I think though that Brexit has been very toxic in Scotland. I'm just speculating but perhaps the Scots quite liked some decisions affecting them coming from Brussels and not London.
Undoubtedly it was toxic, and remains so - we have yet to see the full effects, too.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
If that's what helps you sleep at night then, sure.
I was sepaking of the formal debt - gilts, whatever - issued to the money markets, which is what was being discussed.
I would expect the Treasury to establish some sort of separate debt instrument with the new Scotland, as noted in an earlier posting.
Yes, and as I said Scotland walking away from those commitments would be an absolute disaster and not the way to start a new independent nation. Tbf, I've only ever seen Malc talk about walking away from the debt, it's not even official policy just something he's made up to try and rile everyone up and deflect from the fact that independence means spending cuts and tax rises.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
I think with respect that is confusing 2 things. rUK made it crystal clear to the market that it stood behind all UK debt. That is an entirely different question from whether Scotland would be expected by them to pay a share of it.
Interviewing Anneliese Dodds, starts question "I imagine your opinion is .... xyz".
Why don't you just ask her what her opinion *is*, you silly twot? Public figures don't exist to sit there in the studio watching the BBC's parrots do a one person assumption and projection show.
The sooner Scotland gets to control its own destiny and pay its own bills the better.
Yes, but in what currency?
Scottish pounds you halfwit , as per our existing currency.
Backed by which central bank?
It's own central bank just like most countries in the world, which central bank supports Belgium , Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden , Norway , Iceland , and on and on . What in tiny English minds makes them think Scotland is the only country unable to have its own currency and run its own treasury
Which is fine, but you can't do that and run a 9% deficit indefinitely at the same time. It means an end to free prescriptions, introduction of student fees etc... or significantly higher taxes on income, production and wealth. Like it or not an independent Scotland and the McPound doesn't have the same capacity as sterling, it's not a reserve currency and funds don't already hold £1.2tn in paper they are unwilling to trash. Take a look at all the countries you mention, none of them run a fiscal deficit anything like Scotland would have.
Again, I've told you this plenty of times. I'd still go for it, even knowing that, but if you do there's no running to papa England and asking for a bailout. You will be on your own.
We do not have a 9% deficit, we have made up numbers by Westminster. It would run a balanced budget and borrow sensibly , currently it borrows peanuts as that is all England allows. # We will do just fine.
The "made up numbers" by the Scottish government say you have a 7% deficit, while the UK as a whole is 1.1%:
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
I think with respect that is confusing 2 things. rUK made it crystal clear to the market that it stood behind all UK debt. That is an entirely different question from whether Scotland would be expected by them to pay a share of it.
Yes - it was to avoid spooking the markets - the UK wasn't suddenly going to renege on 10% of its debt and say "ask Edinburgh".
If the divorce talks come to pass, that will be an entirely different matter, between London and Edinburgh. Talk about asymmetric negotiating strengths.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
I think with respect that is confusing 2 things. rUK made it crystal clear to the market that it stood behind all UK debt. That is an entirely different question from whether Scotland would be expected by them to pay a share of it.
As I have just noted in another posting, yes.
The quote is here:
"The Treasury has today set out detail on government debt in the event of Scottish independence. The technical note makes clear that the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government. An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities."
So yes, of course rUK would stand behind UK debt (what else could it do?). But Scotland would have to take its fair share of those liabilities. Or we'd send the SAS to Edinburgh.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
If that's what helps you sleep at night then, sure.
I was sepaking of the formal debt - gilts, whatever - issued to the money markets, which is what was being discussed.
I would expect the Treasury to establish some sort of separate debt instrument with the new Scotland, as noted in an earlier posting.
Yes, and as I said Scotland walking away from those commitments would be an absolute disaster and not the way to start a new independent nation. Tbf, I've only ever seen Malc talk about walking away from the debt, it's not even official policy just something he's made up to try and rile everyone up and deflect from the fact that independence means spending cuts and tax rises.
The question is what happens if the rUK-to-be Government shows the skill and urgency in negotiation that it has shown over Brexit for the last 3-4 years. But that is perhaps a subquestion too far to worry about now in the various option trees open at the moment.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
I think with respect that is confusing 2 things. rUK made it crystal clear to the market that it stood behind all UK debt. That is an entirely different question from whether Scotland would be expected by them to pay a share of it.
As I have just noted in another posting, yes.
The quote is here:
"The Treasury has today set out detail on government debt in the event of Scottish independence. The technical note makes clear that the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government. An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities."
So yes, of course rUK would stand behind UK debt (what else could it do?). But Scotland would have to take its fair share of those liabilities. Or we'd send the SAS to Edinburgh.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
I think with respect that is confusing 2 things. rUK made it crystal clear to the market that it stood behind all UK debt. That is an entirely different question from whether Scotland would be expected by them to pay a share of it.
As I have just noted in another posting, yes.
The quote is here:
"The Treasury has today set out detail on government debt in the event of Scottish independence. The technical note makes clear that the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government. An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities."
So yes, of course rUK would stand behind UK debt (what else could it do?). But Scotland would have to take its fair share of those liabilities. Or we'd send the SAS to Edinburgh.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
If that's what helps you sleep at night then, sure.
I was sepaking of the formal debt - gilts, whatever - issued to the money markets, which is what was being discussed.
I would expect the Treasury to establish some sort of separate debt instrument with the new Scotland, as noted in an earlier posting.
Yes, and as I said Scotland walking away from those commitments would be an absolute disaster and not the way to start a new independent nation. Tbf, I've only ever seen Malc talk about walking away from the debt, it's not even official policy just something he's made up to try and rile everyone up and deflect from the fact that independence means spending cuts and tax rises.
The question is what happens if the rUK-to-be Government shows the skill and urgency in negotiation that it has shown over Brexit for the last 3-4 years. But that is perhaps a subquestion too far to worry about now in the various option trees open at the moment.
"The transfer of debt
1.1 In the event of Scottish independence from the United Kingdom (UK), the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government. An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities, but a share of the outstanding stock of debt instruments that have been issued by the UK would not be transferred to Scotland. For example, there would be no change in counterparty for holders of UK gilts. Instead, an independent Scotland would need to raise funds in order to reimburse the continuing UK for this share."
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
If that's what helps you sleep at night then, sure.
I was sepaking of the formal debt - gilts, whatever - issued to the money markets, which is what was being discussed.
I would expect the Treasury to establish some sort of separate debt instrument with the new Scotland, as noted in an earlier posting.
Yes, and as I said Scotland walking away from those commitments would be an absolute disaster and not the way to start a new independent nation. Tbf, I've only ever seen Malc talk about walking away from the debt, it's not even official policy just something he's made up to try and rile everyone up and deflect from the fact that independence means spending cuts and tax rises.
The question is what happens if the rUK-to-be Government shows the skill and urgency in negotiation that it has shown over Brexit for the last 3-4 years. But that is perhaps a subquestion too far to worry about now in the various option trees open at the moment.
"The transfer of debt
1.1 In the event of Scottish independence from the United Kingdom (UK), the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government. An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities, but a share of the outstanding stock of debt instruments that have been issued by the UK would not be transferred to Scotland. For example, there would be no change in counterparty for holders of UK gilts. Instead, an independent Scotland would need to raise funds in order to reimburse the continuing UK for this share."
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
If that's what helps you sleep at night then, sure.
I was sepaking of the formal debt - gilts, whatever - issued to the money markets, which is what was being discussed.
I would expect the Treasury to establish some sort of separate debt instrument with the new Scotland, as noted in an earlier posting.
Yes, and as I said Scotland walking away from those commitments would be an absolute disaster and not the way to start a new independent nation. Tbf, I've only ever seen Malc talk about walking away from the debt, it's not even official policy just something he's made up to try and rile everyone up and deflect from the fact that independence means spending cuts and tax rises.
The question is what happens if the rUK-to-be Government shows the skill and urgency in negotiation that it has shown over Brexit for the last 3-4 years. But that is perhaps a subquestion too far to worry about now in the various option trees open at the moment.
Well that's a different question entirely, though since the Boris team took over it is definitely going a lot better. There's definitely less of the "we don't know what you want from us" stuff from the EU. I get the feeling we'd see a lot of that from Scotland for a couple of years and possibly even an election that delivers a unionist majority in the Scottish parliament before negotiations are concluded. I honestly have no idea what happens in that scenario.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
If that's what helps you sleep at night then, sure.
I was sepaking of the formal debt - gilts, whatever - issued to the money markets, which is what was being discussed.
I would expect the Treasury to establish some sort of separate debt instrument with the new Scotland, as noted in an earlier posting.
Yes, and as I said Scotland walking away from those commitments would be an absolute disaster and not the way to start a new independent nation. Tbf, I've only ever seen Malc talk about walking away from the debt, it's not even official policy just something he's made up to try and rile everyone up and deflect from the fact that independence means spending cuts and tax rises.
The question is what happens if the rUK-to-be Government shows the skill and urgency in negotiation that it has shown over Brexit for the last 3-4 years. But that is perhaps a subquestion too far to worry about now in the various option trees open at the moment.
Well that's a different question entirely, though since the Boris team took over it is definitely going a lot better. There's definitely less of the "we don't know what you want from us" stuff from the EU. I get the feeling we'd see a lot of that from Scotland for a couple of years and possibly even an election that delivers a unionist majority in the Scottish parliament before negotiations are concluded. I honestly have no idea what happens in that scenario.
We could have a campaign for a second, sorry, third referendum. Whether rUK would be up for that I am not sure.
I think that she is a weakness and not helped by shadowing the Tories' star turn. SKS needs someone more authoritative.
Nobody is going to beat a man throwing money around.
Let's see in a few months when she has grown into the role (or not - for me she's not great but passable and a lot less scary than McDonnell for many) and how she compares to Rishi then.
My belief is like Johnson, Rishi's ratings cannot hold.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
If that's what helps you sleep at night then, sure.
I was sepaking of the formal debt - gilts, whatever - issued to the money markets, which is what was being discussed.
I would expect the Treasury to establish some sort of separate debt instrument with the new Scotland, as noted in an earlier posting.
Yes, and as I said Scotland walking away from those commitments would be an absolute disaster and not the way to start a new independent nation. Tbf, I've only ever seen Malc talk about walking away from the debt, it's not even official policy just something he's made up to try and rile everyone up and deflect from the fact that independence means spending cuts and tax rises.
The question is what happens if the rUK-to-be Government shows the skill and urgency in negotiation that it has shown over Brexit for the last 3-4 years. But that is perhaps a subquestion too far to worry about now in the various option trees open at the moment.
Well that's a different question entirely, though since the Boris team took over it is definitely going a lot better. There's definitely less of the "we don't know what you want from us" stuff from the EU. I get the feeling we'd see a lot of that from Scotland for a couple of years and possibly even an election that delivers a unionist majority in the Scottish parliament before negotiations are concluded. I honestly have no idea what happens in that scenario.
There is admittedly one big difference with Brexit, in that the end point is clear - independence on the existing (and very ancient) borders. Which [edit] makes negotiations a lot easier by comparison with the performance of Messrs/Mdmes Davis, May, ERG, DUP, etc. over Brexit.
Anyway night all - have to go and finish tidying before kippers and new potatoes.
@MaxPB project fear just isn’t going to work this time.
Which is quite remarkable, given that Scots will have before them, in full sight, a fully worked example of what happens if you disrupt trading patterns, create borders where there were none before, ignore the practical realities, and alienate your much bigger neighbour, all in the name of a chimera.
It will be just one more in the list of catastrophic misjudgements made by voters in the UK since 2016.
I hope you aren't blaming all our current foibles on the voters? I mean our leaders have hardly excelled themselves.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
If that's what helps you sleep at night then, sure.
I was sepaking of the formal debt - gilts, whatever - issued to the money markets, which is what was being discussed.
I would expect the Treasury to establish some sort of separate debt instrument with the new Scotland, as noted in an earlier posting.
Yes, and as I said Scotland walking away from those commitments would be an absolute disaster and not the way to start a new independent nation. Tbf, I've only ever seen Malc talk about walking away from the debt, it's not even official policy just something he's made up to try and rile everyone up and deflect from the fact that independence means spending cuts and tax rises.
The question is what happens if the rUK-to-be Government shows the skill and urgency in negotiation that it has shown over Brexit for the last 3-4 years. But that is perhaps a subquestion too far to worry about now in the various option trees open at the moment.
Well that's a different question entirely, though since the Boris team took over it is definitely going a lot better. There's definitely less of the "we don't know what you want from us" stuff from the EU. I get the feeling we'd see a lot of that from Scotland for a couple of years and possibly even an election that delivers a unionist majority in the Scottish parliament before negotiations are concluded. I honestly have no idea what happens in that scenario.
We could have a campaign for a second, sorry, third referendum. Whether rUK would be up for that I am not sure.
It could end up as some kind of sterling zone madness of a monetary and economic union but no political union. I think that's what the SNP will ask for at least and obviously be denied.
Spain is particularly bad, they had 3,632 - it has the second highest case rate per 1M of any European nation bar Sweden. Belgium is not great either.
Also Ireland has a higher case rate than the UK.
A 2nd wave is now unquestionably sweeping Europe.
BTW the UK is also testing at an enormous rate. We've done nearly 19m tests, the fifth highest absolute total in the world (behind China, USA, Russia, India).
For comparison Spain has done 7m and France 5.5m
We're not absolute shite at everything.
EDIT: my bad, these are yesterday's figures for new cases, not today's. But the point is still good.
The moles don't seem to be responding much to the whackings.
Maybe the moles were an artefact. Despite being a supposed hotspot, numbers of inpatients in Leicester is a third of what it was a month ago.
When you start doing door to door swabbing you find a lot of mild disease. Important for stamping it out, but not to lose sleep over.
Maybe, but if that was the only explanation you'd expect biggish jump when they started intensive testing, followed by a tailing-off as the moles were whacked. That doesn't seem to be happening, although perhaps it's still too early to tell.
It would be good if they did some intensive testing in non-hotspot areas, as a control.
Yes, I think intensive testing should suppress eventually, but will need time to whack smaller and smaller moles. Outbreak sites a very mixed picture here in Kirklees, still a variety of factories and workplaces, pubs and they're spreading casesout and finding cases all over the borough now not just in the original hotspot areas - even as aaa metro we are a much more spread out place than Leicester city.
In Malmesburys incidence graphs, I'm looking with interest at East Midlands districts towards the A1, Lincoln, Bassetlaw, Newark, Melton, E. Northants etc. as places less stereotypable than the northern towns that might be developing towards being hotspots.
Second Test at Southampton starts tomorrow. PBers have long been accustomed to profiting from laying the draw in five day games except when the weather is doubtful. If you believe the BBC forecast you would have to think that there could be a lot of interruptions. Otoh if you believe Netweather there could be a full five days, in which case the chances of a draw are much more remote than the odds of 2.9 (Betfair) would suggest.
Dodgy business betting on weather forecasts. Weathermen are rather apt to change their minds (and seldom admit a mistake when wrong!), but if Netweather are anywhere near right this looks a good betting opportunity.
I'd suggests laying to begin with but be quick to hedge as the contest evolves.
I reckon Pakistan to win is the best bet, given how close they were last week. England without Stokes; Pakistan's bowling attack is strong enough to bowl England out twice, with maybe a worn pitch taking spin. And following rain ground should drain and dry pretty quickly. And Babar will score a century....
Yes, I thought about that myself but others have obviously noted it too and the price is a bit skimpy. The toss will be vital, so if England win it the visitors will suddenly be bad value. Backing the draw is very safe, unless Netweather have screwed up....
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
It's not without international consequences either, if a nation sees fit to walk away from one set of obligations then it sets a pretty awful precedent. They will be considered a nation in default at that point which means borrowing from speculators in USD, GBP and other foreign currencies because no one will be willing to buy paper sold under Scottish law in Edinburgh.
There are lots of arguments to be made in favour of SIndy, but I'm not sure walking away from the debt is one of them.
But the existing debt was defined as entirely rUK debt by the UK Treasury in 2013 (or perhaps 2014 - I'd need to check). So there would be no walking away from that.
If that's what helps you sleep at night then, sure.
I was sepaking of the formal debt - gilts, whatever - issued to the money markets, which is what was being discussed.
I would expect the Treasury to establish some sort of separate debt instrument with the new Scotland, as noted in an earlier posting.
Yes, and as I said Scotland walking away from those commitments would be an absolute disaster and not the way to start a new independent nation. Tbf, I've only ever seen Malc talk about walking away from the debt, it's not even official policy just something he's made up to try and rile everyone up and deflect from the fact that independence means spending cuts and tax rises.
The question is what happens if the rUK-to-be Government shows the skill and urgency in negotiation that it has shown over Brexit for the last 3-4 years. But that is perhaps a subquestion too far to worry about now in the various option trees open at the moment.
Well that's a different question entirely, though since the Boris team took over it is definitely going a lot better. There's definitely less of the "we don't know what you want from us" stuff from the EU. I get the feeling we'd see a lot of that from Scotland for a couple of years and possibly even an election that delivers a unionist majority in the Scottish parliament before negotiations are concluded. I honestly have no idea what happens in that scenario.
In the theoretical scenario where SNP landslide next year leads to second referendum soon after, and that in turn leads to an independence vote, then the imperative for the Government in London will be to set Scotland off on its way as quickly as possible. They'll want it gone before the next General Election - otherwise Scotland will end up returning MPs to Westminster again and said individuals could easily end up holding the balance of power, with farcical consequences.
However, since it seems highly likely that Johnson will stonewall any attempts to hold a second referendum, these are problems that ought not to present themselves for another few years yet.
@MaxPB project fear just isn’t going to work this time.
Which is quite remarkable, given that Scots will have before them, in full sight, a fully worked example of what happens if you disrupt trading patterns, create borders where there were none before, ignore the practical realities, and alienate your much bigger neighbour, all in the name of a chimera.
It will be just one more in the list of catastrophic misjudgements made by voters in the UK since 2016.
I hope you aren't blaming all our current foibles on the voters? I mean our leaders have hardly excelled themselves.
In fairness, most of the mainstream political leaders advocated a sensible approach in regard to Brexit. It was only the anarchists - Boris, Farage, Corbyn etc. - who urged the voters to throw good judgement to the wind and step into a nightmare.
The sooner Scotland gets to control its own destiny and pay its own bills the better.
Yes, but in what currency?
A Scottish Pound makes the most sense to me. Like the Irish had pre-Euro.
What they call it is pretty much irrelevant. The important thing is who stands behind it.
The Scottish treasury, yet another halfwit who does not understand how countries run and thinks only Scotland in the whole world cannot have a treasury. How thick can you be , our share of all the loot from Bank of UK will be deposited in our new Treasury and we will run just like the 200 or so other countries in the world run, FFS think before you write such crap.
You want a large share of the UK’s IOUs?
That’s generous of you.
We will be debt free and the English unionist Nat West Bank will never be near being the central bank.
An independent Scotland would get no share of assets unless you also took on a share of debts.
I don't know why that is even controversial. That or some trade off for it would be part of the cost of independence. Untangling such a longstanding union will be complicated and involve difficulty - it was bad enough some Brexiteers pretending it would all be easy without people pretending the same with Sindy, which is much more complicated. There's no need to blow smoke up people's arses about such things, I'd be astonished if it would persuade someone who has made the switch to be an Indy supporter to change their mind.
The reason Salmond failed was because ultimately, he wasn’t being truthful about these sort of trade offs and everyone who was not already a rabid nationalist could see that. It meant that either he didn’t know what he was talking about, or he was lying, and in neither case did he command conviction.
The question at the next referendum is whether people will care, or whether they will conclude, like the Irish, that although they would be worse off financially independence would still be preferable.
Scotland was full of posters the last time boasting how much public spending could increase once we had our own budget, how many more teachers, doctors and nurses we could have. It was unmitigated crap and thankfully the majority did not believe it although depressingly many did.
I really don't believe that the SNP will be able to run such arguments again. If we went independent we would be looking at cuts in public spending of around 20% to balance the budget. How many hospitals, schools and roads is independence worth?
For those to whom this is their Valhalla none of this matters but I think that they are outnumbered by those conned into believing the lies in the Scottish Government's White paper.
I think though that Brexit has been very toxic in Scotland. I'm just speculating but perhaps the Scots quite liked some decisions affecting them coming from Brussels and not London.
Brexit feeds into it. More fundamentally Johnson's concept of union isn't shared by most 2014 No voters and certainly not by Yes voters. This is borne out by the YouGov polling.
I would say the Union is doomed on the current trajectory.
Why so upset? At least the figures in the uk can now be fairly compared. Or would you prefer that all who test positive will be deemed to have died of it, even if (a) they are hit by a bus or (b) they don’t die for another 50 years?
That one change makes the UK much less of outlier - inter alia - just a few thousand deaths ahead of Italy, and with a very similar death rate to Italy and Spain
Why so upset? At least the figures in the uk can now be fairly compared. Or would you prefer that all who test positive will be deemed to have died of it, even if (a) they are hit by a bus or (b) they don’t die for another 50 years?
Not upset, just frustrated that these fools didn't do it before. The government has taken a lot of flak simply because its stats were stupidly and unfairly negative.
It is daft that you could be counted a Covid death simply coz you fell down your stairs three months after a positive Covid test.
That one change makes the UK much less of outlier - inter alia - just a few thousand deaths ahead of Italy, and with a very similar death rate to Italy and Spain
That one change makes the UK much less of outlier - inter alia - just a few thousand deaths ahead of Italy, and with a very similar death rate to Italy and Spain
I'm slightly surprised it made that much difference.
However the main issue is not the total. It's the fact that it will be making a significant difference to the current daily death rate. The current 7-day death rate is stuck at about 60 when the number dying in English hospitals is less than 10. It will be interesting to see the new daily figures when they are published.
A couple of months ago, when far fewer people had been tested, the daily death rate was higher, and people had had less time to die of other causes post-test, it would have probably had an insignificant impact on the total. Now it is making out death rate look like it is being held up disproportionately.
Why so upset? At least the figures in the uk can now be fairly compared. Or would you prefer that all who test positive will be deemed to have died of it, even if (a) they are hit by a bus or (b) they don’t die for another 50 years?
I'm slightly surprised it made that much difference.
However the main issue is not the total. It's the fact that it will be making a significant difference to the current daily death rate. The current 7-day death rate is stuck at about 60 when the number dying in English hospitals is less than 10. It will be interesting to see the new daily figures when they are published.
A couple of months ago, when far fewer people had been tested, the daily death rate was higher, and people had had less time to die of other causes post-test, it would have probably had an insignificant impact on the total. Now it is making out death rate look like it is being held up disproportionately.
The moles don't seem to be responding much to the whackings.
Maybe the moles were an artefact. Despite being a supposed hotspot, numbers of inpatients in Leicester is a third of what it was a month ago.
When you start doing door to door swabbing you find a lot of mild disease. Important for stamping it out, but not to lose sleep over.
Maybe, but if that was the only explanation you'd expect biggish jump when they started intensive testing, followed by a tailing-off as the moles were whacked. That doesn't seem to be happening, although perhaps it's still too early to tell.
It would be good if they did some intensive testing in non-hotspot areas, as a control.
Yes, I think intensive testing should suppress eventually, but will need time to whack smaller and smaller moles. Outbreak sites a very mixed picture here in Kirklees, still a variety of factories and workplaces, pubs and they're spreading casesout and finding cases all over the borough now not just in the original hotspot areas - even as aaa metro we are a much more spread out place than Leicester city.
In Malmesburys incidence graphs, I'm looking with interest at East Midlands districts towards the A1, Lincoln, Bassetlaw, Newark, Melton, E. Northants etc. as places less stereotypable than the northern towns that might be developing towards being hotspots.
The ONS sub-area case map for w/c 2/8 is an absolute stunner. Linked at very bottom of this article:
Spain is particularly bad, they had 3,632 - it has the second highest case rate per 1M of any European nation bar Sweden. Belgium is not great either.
Also Ireland has a higher case rate than the UK.
A 2nd wave is now unquestionably sweeping Europe.
BTW the UK is also testing at an enormous rate. We've done nearly 19m tests, the fifth highest absolute total in the world (behind China, USA, Russia, India).
For comparison Spain has done 7m and France 5.5m
We're not absolute shite at everything.
EDIT: my bad, these are yesterday's figures for new cases, not today's. But the point is still good.
I don't think a second wave is sweeping Europe. The first one just hasn't finished. Exponential distributions, even if suppressed as this one has been, have long tails. The virus was not suppressed before lockdown ended. We do seem to be doing better than many at the moment, although of course our unlocking was more recent and it remains to be seen whether the existing distancing measures (which are more stringent than many in Europe) and the whack-a-mole strategy will keep it at the current level.
Spain is particularly bad, they had 3,632 - it has the second highest case rate per 1M of any European nation bar Sweden. Belgium is not great either.
Also Ireland has a higher case rate than the UK.
A 2nd wave is now unquestionably sweeping Europe.
BTW the UK is also testing at an enormous rate. We've done nearly 19m tests, the fifth highest absolute total in the world (behind China, USA, Russia, India).
For comparison Spain has done 7m and France 5.5m
We're not absolute shite at everything.
EDIT: my bad, these are yesterday's figures for new cases, not today's. But the point is still good.
I don't think a second wave is sweeping Europe. The first one just hasn't finished. Exponential distributions, even if suppressed as this one has been, have long tails. The virus was not suppressed before lockdown ended. We do seem to be doing better than many at the moment, although of course our unlocking was more recent and it remains to be seen whether the existing distancing measures (which are more stringent than many in Europe) and the whack-a-mole strategy will keep it at the current level.
Actually I don't think this virus has any waves at all in the traditional sense of "seasonality" (as with Spanish Flu). Coronavirus has no seasonality. It attacks in summer and winter, everywhere.
So yes we are still in a first wave, and always will be, but what we are seeing is a behavioural and statistical second wave, as lockdowns are eased, tourism is allowed, churches and mosques and pubs and cafes reopen, and the virus takes advantage.
Spain is particularly bad, they had 3,632 - it has the second highest case rate per 1M of any European nation bar Sweden. Belgium is not great either.
Also Ireland has a higher case rate than the UK.
A 2nd wave is now unquestionably sweeping Europe.
BTW the UK is also testing at an enormous rate. We've done nearly 19m tests, the fifth highest absolute total in the world (behind China, USA, Russia, India).
For comparison Spain has done 7m and France 5.5m
We're not absolute shite at everything.
EDIT: my bad, these are yesterday's figures for new cases, not today's. But the point is still good.
I don't think a second wave is sweeping Europe. The first one just hasn't finished. Exponential distributions, even if suppressed as this one has been, have long tails. The virus was not suppressed before lockdown ended. We do seem to be doing better than many at the moment, although of course our unlocking was more recent and it remains to be seen whether the existing distancing measures (which are more stringent than many in Europe) and the whack-a-mole strategy will keep it at the current level.
Actually I don't think this virus has any waves at all in the traditional sense of "seasonality" (as with Spanish Flu). Coronavirus has no seasonality. It attacks in summer and winter, everywhere.
So yes we are still in a first wave, and always will be, but what we are seeing is a behavioural and statistical second wave, as lockdowns are eased, tourism is allowed, churches and mosques and pubs and cafes reopen, and the virus takes advantage.
We still don't know about seasonality. Australia has had an outbreak in their winter. It could be that in those places that have had bad outbreaks in the summer, living and working in crowded conditions, socialising in packed bars, etc, overrides any summer effect. And in some places people stay indoors in the summer because their houses are cool. Certainly in much of Europe, people huddle together indoors in the winter. I don't mind socialising outside at the moment but I don't fancy pub gardens and al fresco dining in January. (Although I'm a runner and therefore do socialise outdoors all year round, to an extent). The ZOE people think there is some seasonality, and also a link to cool dry air so not only meat packing plants and the like but may also be an issue in those places that commonly use air conditioning in the summer, eg Texas and |Florida https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/weather-covid
I'm slightly surprised it made that much difference.
However the main issue is not the total. It's the fact that it will be making a significant difference to the current daily death rate. The current 7-day death rate is stuck at about 60 when the number dying in English hospitals is less than 10. It will be interesting to see the new daily figures when they are published.
A couple of months ago, when far fewer people had been tested, the daily death rate was higher, and people had had less time to die of other causes post-test, it would have probably had an insignificant impact on the total. Now it is making out death rate look like it is being held up disproportionately.
I still think the following is the best summation :-)
The sooner Scotland gets to control its own destiny and pay its own bills the better.
Yes, but in what currency?
Scottish pounds you halfwit , as per our existing currency.
Backed by which central bank?
It's own central bank just like most countries in the world, which central bank supports Belgium , Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden , Norway , Iceland , and on and on . What in tiny English minds makes them think Scotland is the only country unable to have its own currency and run its own treasury
Nothing. But last time (IIRC) SNP policy was to continue to use the pound sterling (that could work) but to have the right to have a say over monetary policy for rUK (not plausible).
Moving to your own currency makes sense, but it’s a complicated transition
Mostly correct, but there was always a degree of bravado about Brexit, and a slight degree of arsyness about it's opponents. (Not that I imagine this chap is)
Brexit will look ugly until it works. If it works.
I'm slightly surprised it made that much difference.
However the main issue is not the total. It's the fact that it will be making a significant difference to the current daily death rate. The current 7-day death rate is stuck at about 60 when the number dying in English hospitals is less than 10. It will be interesting to see the new daily figures when they are published.
A couple of months ago, when far fewer people had been tested, the daily death rate was higher, and people had had less time to die of other causes post-test, it would have probably had an insignificant impact on the total. Now it is making out death rate look like it is being held up disproportionately.
Oh, and the death rate in hospitals is below 5 now, on a day-of-death basis.
The Spectator failing to understand rhetorical questions..,
Good to see my suggestion bearing fruit.
They are not understanding the best bit, though . The refugees are upset because they aren't in Britain. Overnight they would be, without the whole RIB across the channel thing.
We would bring Britain to the refugees.
Getting a ferry ticket - well, that might be another issue. But we would have taken all those poor people in.
The UK is going to have an enormous debt at the end of Covid, much of it accrued in supporting the English AND SCottish economies, paying for the furloughs of English AND Scottish workers (and Welsh and Norn as well, of course)
The idea that Scotland would be allowed to walk away from this shared debt, undertaken to help Scotland and England alike, is not just morally appalling, it is actively impossible. It would guarantee a vastly hostile reaction from the English (and their government). England would make Scotland pay, one way or another. It would be brutal. England is ten times the size of Scotland.
The English can be an apathetic and foolish people, but they won't be taken for idiots forever. Not when it comes to hard money.
Ironically the U.K. government can ignore this debt (unless they monetise it).
If it’s transferred to iScot it becomes a real cash liability...
The usual plethora of midweek polling across the Pond.
The three General Election polls all give Biden a decisive advantage - he's up 6 points with Rasmussen (49-43) and CNBC/Change Research (50-44) and 10 ahead with Economist/YouGov (49-39).
It is however the last-named which provides the most comprehensive crosstabs for our free perusal:
Biden leads by four among men and fifteen among women. Trump leads among those with a High School,Diploma or lesser education and among those earning $50,000 - $100,000 per annum.
Trump leads among those over 65 (46-44)and among Whites by 48-43. He leads in the south by 49-45 (the largest regional group in the sample) but is miles behind elsewhere including the Midwest where Biden has a suspiciously large 12-point advantage (47-35). Independents break 39-38 for Biden.
The Rasmussen poll shows Biden's lead ticking up from four to six in a week and from a pollster which often shows the Republicans polling more strongly, this is a warning shot.
In the various State polls, Trump seems to be hanging on in North Carolina but Biden has squeezed out 4-6 point advantages in other key marginals and a 36-point lead in the not-marginal-at-all Massachusetts.
Which is not what has happened. Do you prefer being able to run down the government because of the England figures being worse than the other uk nations? At least now the numbers can be fairly compared.
The sooner Scotland gets to control its own destiny and pay its own bills the better.
Yes, but in what currency?
A Scottish Pound makes the most sense to me. Like the Irish had pre-Euro.
Didn't Ireland have an ERM type 1:1 peg with the British Pound?
Yeah, I think so. Must have been difficult to maintain after the UK dropped out of the ERM.
The peg vanished long before erm, my gf in 1990 was Irish and we always changed money before flying over but bars were only too happy to accept english money on a 1:1 basis I think at the time it was something like 90 pence to the punt
I think it was abandoned when Ireland joined the ERM in the 80s. (They may have been a member of the Snake before that.)
Second Test at Southampton starts tomorrow. PBers have long been accustomed to profiting from laying the draw in five day games except when the weather is doubtful. If you believe the BBC forecast you would have to think that there could be a lot of interruptions. Otoh if you believe Netweather there could be a full five days, in which case the chances of a draw are much more remote than the odds of 2.9 (Betfair) would suggest.
Dodgy business betting on weather forecasts. Weathermen are rather apt to change their minds (and seldom admit a mistake when wrong!), but if Netweather are anywhere near right this looks a good betting opportunity.
I'd suggests laying to begin with but be quick to hedge as the contest evolves.
I reckon Pakistan to win is the best bet, given how close they were last week. England without Stokes; Pakistan's bowling attack is strong enough to bowl England out twice, with maybe a worn pitch taking spin. And following rain ground should drain and dry pretty quickly. And Babar will score a century....
Yes, I thought about that myself but others have obviously noted it too and the price is a bit skimpy. The toss will be vital, so if England win it the visitors will suddenly be bad value. Backing the draw is very safe, unless Netweather have screwed up....
Betting is fraught with danger if it involves Pakistan . Not for me , you can never tell when they are ON.
Spain is particularly bad, they had 3,632 - it has the second highest case rate per 1M of any European nation bar Sweden. Belgium is not great either.
Also Ireland has a higher case rate than the UK.
A 2nd wave is now unquestionably sweeping Europe.
BTW the UK is also testing at an enormous rate. We've done nearly 19m tests, the fifth highest absolute total in the world (behind China, USA, Russia, India).
For comparison Spain has done 7m and France 5.5m
We're not absolute shite at everything.
EDIT: my bad, these are yesterday's figures for new cases, not today's. But the point is still good.
I don't think a second wave is sweeping Europe. The first one just hasn't finished. Exponential distributions, even if suppressed as this one has been, have long tails. The virus was not suppressed before lockdown ended. We do seem to be doing better than many at the moment, although of course our unlocking was more recent and it remains to be seen whether the existing distancing measures (which are more stringent than many in Europe) and the whack-a-mole strategy will keep it at the current level.
Actually I don't think this virus has any waves at all in the traditional sense of "seasonality" (as with Spanish Flu). Coronavirus has no seasonality. It attacks in summer and winter, everywhere.
So yes we are still in a first wave, and always will be, but what we are seeing is a behavioural and statistical second wave, as lockdowns are eased, tourism is allowed, churches and mosques and pubs and cafes reopen, and the virus takes advantage.
I don't think Spanish flu counts as seasonal - the second wave could be described as a different disease, certainly had some different symptoms and affected different populations differently.
I've seen a couple of compelling arguments that this bug is at least temperature sensitive. Seasonal? We've barely had two.
@MaxPB project fear just isn’t going to work this time.
Which is quite remarkable, given that Scots will have before them, in full sight, a fully worked example of what happens if you disrupt trading patterns, create borders where there were none before, ignore the practical realities, and alienate your much bigger neighbour, all in the name of a chimera.
It will be just one more in the list of catastrophic misjudgements made by voters in the UK since 2016.
I hope you aren't blaming all our current foibles on the voters? I mean our leaders have hardly excelled themselves.
And who chose those leaders, gave them a daft instruction, took away the majority which might have made it possible to at least come up with some reasonable implementation of the daft instruction, cemented Corbyn in place by not rejecting him properly in 2017, and then gave Boris a big majority on a clearly absurd platform?
Which is not what has happened. Do you prefer being able to run down the government because of the England figures being worse than the other uk nations? At least now the numbers can be fairly compared.
This isn't or shouldn't be a macabre popularity or virility contest. No one has "won", we have all lost and it doesn't matter whether you think the death toll is 40,000 or 60,000, really, it doesn't.
Every death is a tragedy - as a wise man once said "we're all someone's daughter, we're all someone's son".
MY brother tested positive for the fourth time yesterday - the medics treating him now think a low white blood cell count is stopping him fighting off the virus. He is having his flat deep cleaned and "fogged" but at least they are taking an interest now. He can't work or visit his children at present.
There are many thousands of people who are and will continue to suffer long-term medical problems from this virus and if all we have are lines on charts and graphs, excel spreadsheets and a "my country's got fewer dead than yours" mentality, I'm saddened.
The dead deserve better, the suffering deserve better.
Spain is particularly bad, they had 3,632 - it has the second highest case rate per 1M of any European nation bar Sweden. Belgium is not great either.
Also Ireland has a higher case rate than the UK.
A 2nd wave is now unquestionably sweeping Europe.
BTW the UK is also testing at an enormous rate. We've done nearly 19m tests, the fifth highest absolute total in the world (behind China, USA, Russia, India).
For comparison Spain has done 7m and France 5.5m
We're not absolute shite at everything.
EDIT: my bad, these are yesterday's figures for new cases, not today's. But the point is still good.
I don't think a second wave is sweeping Europe. The first one just hasn't finished. Exponential distributions, even if suppressed as this one has been, have long tails. The virus was not suppressed before lockdown ended. We do seem to be doing better than many at the moment, although of course our unlocking was more recent and it remains to be seen whether the existing distancing measures (which are more stringent than many in Europe) and the whack-a-mole strategy will keep it at the current level.
Actually I don't think this virus has any waves at all in the traditional sense of "seasonality" (as with Spanish Flu). Coronavirus has no seasonality. It attacks in summer and winter, everywhere.
So yes we are still in a first wave, and always will be, but what we are seeing is a behavioural and statistical second wave, as lockdowns are eased, tourism is allowed, churches and mosques and pubs and cafes reopen, and the virus takes advantage.
I don't think Spanish flu counts as seasonal - the second wave could be described as a different disease, certainly had some different symptoms and affected different populations differently.
I've seen a couple of compelling arguments that this bug is at least temperature sensitive. Seasonal? We've barely had two.
So temperature sensitive it walloped Iran at the height of summer?
Comments
Even if Sturgeon wins 98% of the Holyrood votes, he will say No, because he does not want to be the PM that lost the union.
Ironically, the one way Sturgeon would get her vote in 2022 (say) is if the polls indicated a big NO vote, but then, of course, she would not want inyref2, herself.
A sweet paradox.
So the vote will be after 2024, under PM Starmer or Sunak. Unionists will hope that something will come along to save them interim, nationalists will hope that refusing a vote will have stoked even more grievance, guaranteeing YES.
We shall see.
I would expect the Treasury to establish some sort of separate debt instrument with the new Scotland, as noted in an earlier posting.
“I think it’s more about how the community leadership seems obsessed with trying to wheedle their way back into the heart of the Labour Party.”
Outrageously anti-Semitic, these Tories should be utterly ashamed
Interviewing Anneliese Dodds, starts question "I imagine your opinion is .... xyz".
Why don't you just ask her what her opinion *is*, you silly twot? Public figures don't exist to sit there in the studio watching the BBC's parrots do a one person assumption and projection show.
If the divorce talks come to pass, that will be an entirely different matter, between London and Edinburgh. Talk about asymmetric negotiating strengths.
"The Treasury has today set out detail on government debt in the event of Scottish independence. The technical note makes clear that the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government. An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities."
So yes, of course rUK would stand behind UK debt (what else could it do?). But Scotland would have to take its fair share of those liabilities. Or we'd send the SAS to Edinburgh.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-debt-and-the-scotland-independence-referendum
1.1 In the event of Scottish independence from the United Kingdom (UK), the continuing UK Government would in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of the debt issued by the UK Government. An independent Scottish state would become responsible for a fair and proportionate share of the UK’s current liabilities, but a share of the outstanding stock of debt instruments that have been issued by the UK would not be transferred to Scotland. For example, there would be no change in counterparty for holders of UK gilts. Instead, an independent Scotland would need to raise funds in order to reimburse the continuing UK for this share."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270643/uk_debt_and_the_Scotland_independence_referendum.pdf
Let's see in a few months when she has grown into the role (or not - for me she's not great but passable and a lot less scary than McDonnell for many) and how she compares to Rishi then.
My belief is like Johnson, Rishi's ratings cannot hold.
Anyway night all - have to go and finish tidying before kippers and new potatoes.
France had 1,397
Spain is particularly bad, they had 3,632 - it has the second highest case rate per 1M of any European nation bar Sweden. Belgium is not great either.
Also Ireland has a higher case rate than the UK.
A 2nd wave is now unquestionably sweeping Europe.
BTW the UK is also testing at an enormous rate. We've done nearly 19m tests, the fifth highest absolute total in the world (behind China, USA, Russia, India).
For comparison Spain has done 7m and France 5.5m
We're not absolute shite at everything.
EDIT: my bad, these are yesterday's figures for new cases, not today's. But the point is still good.
In Malmesburys incidence graphs, I'm looking with interest at East Midlands districts towards the A1, Lincoln, Bassetlaw, Newark, Melton, E. Northants etc. as places less stereotypable than the northern towns that might be developing towards being hotspots.
However, since it seems highly likely that Johnson will stonewall any attempts to hold a second referendum, these are problems that ought not to present themselves for another few years yet.
I would say the Union is doomed on the current trajectory.
Largest recession in history?
Terrible response to coronavirus?
Millions of jobs on the line?
I've got a great offer on immigrants, just point and shout something slightly racist
It is daft that you could be counted a Covid death simply coz you fell down your stairs three months after a positive Covid test.
However the main issue is not the total. It's the fact that it will be making a significant difference to the current daily death rate. The current 7-day death rate is stuck at about 60 when the number dying in English hospitals is less than 10. It will be interesting to see the new daily figures when they are published.
A couple of months ago, when far fewer people had been tested, the daily death rate was higher, and people had had less time to die of other causes post-test, it would have probably had an insignificant impact on the total. Now it is making out death rate look like it is being held up disproportionately.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/worst-postcodes-covid-rates-locked-18758951#ICID=Android_HuddersfieldExaminerNewsApp_AppShare
The time at which the BBC report the revision to COVID-19 deaths in England.
can it be more radical next time? that way I can moan about the even worse economic effects properly.
So yes we are still in a first wave, and always will be, but what we are seeing is a behavioural and statistical second wave, as lockdowns are eased, tourism is allowed, churches and mosques and pubs and cafes reopen, and the virus takes advantage.
It's a bold strategy
Correct.
It's by week, from the various data sources -
There was the Croydon tram derailment in 2016, with 7 dead. Might have been other crashes too.
Moving to your own currency makes sense, but it’s a complicated transition
Brexit will look ugly until it works. If it works.
Just make up new ones.
claims that alt right rag the.....er.......FT.
They are not understanding the best bit, though . The refugees are upset because they aren't in Britain. Overnight they would be, without the whole RIB across the channel thing.
We would bring Britain to the refugees.
Getting a ferry ticket - well, that might be another issue. But we would have taken all those poor people in.
If it’s transferred to iScot it becomes a real cash liability...
Although we all know the crucifixion was faked, if it really happened it would have been called the crucifact.
That is, the grey band (below) will stay in the negative region -
The usual plethora of midweek polling across the Pond.
The three General Election polls all give Biden a decisive advantage - he's up 6 points with Rasmussen (49-43) and CNBC/Change Research (50-44) and 10 ahead with Economist/YouGov (49-39).
It is however the last-named which provides the most comprehensive crosstabs for our free perusal:
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/horeovzt7u/econTabReport.pdf
Biden leads by four among men and fifteen among women. Trump leads among those with a High School,Diploma or lesser education and among those earning $50,000 - $100,000 per annum.
Trump leads among those over 65 (46-44)and among Whites by 48-43. He leads in the south by 49-45 (the largest regional group in the sample) but is miles behind elsewhere including the Midwest where Biden has a suspiciously large 12-point advantage (47-35). Independents break 39-38 for Biden.
The Rasmussen poll shows Biden's lead ticking up from four to six in a week and from a pollster which often shows the Republicans polling more strongly, this is a warning shot.
In the various State polls, Trump seems to be hanging on in North Carolina but Biden has squeezed out 4-6 point advantages in other key marginals and a 36-point lead in the not-marginal-at-all Massachusetts.
We'll bounce back quicker if a) we can avoid the sort of numbers Spain are seeing again and b) people have confidence in going out and spending money.
Neither of those things would have been likely with a shorter lockdown.
I've seen a couple of compelling arguments that this bug is at least temperature sensitive. Seasonal? We've barely had two.
Every death is a tragedy - as a wise man once said "we're all someone's daughter, we're all someone's son".
MY brother tested positive for the fourth time yesterday - the medics treating him now think a low white blood cell count is stopping him fighting off the virus. He is having his flat deep cleaned and "fogged" but at least they are taking an interest now. He can't work or visit his children at present.
There are many thousands of people who are and will continue to suffer long-term medical problems from this virus and if all we have are lines on charts and graphs, excel spreadsheets and a "my country's got fewer dead than yours" mentality, I'm saddened.
The dead deserve better, the suffering deserve better.
This govt is centrist.
Labour policy at present is STILL further to the left (most especially culturally) than at any point in my memory, the Corbyn interregnum aside.