The UK approach will be a case study in how not to carry out negotiations for many years to come.
I can't believe the deal will really founder on state aid.
It's an abstract concept for most, not particularly politically high-stakes and most Conservatives don't particularly like it anyway.
What's the objection to agreeing a "level playing field"? It sounds very fair and no-one except Bill Cash knows what it means so there is no downside for Boris.
The UK approach will be a case study in how not to carry out negotiations for many years to come.
I can't believe the deal will really founder on state aid.
It's an abstract concept for most, not particularly politically high-stakes and most Conservatives don't particularly like it anyway.
Isn't the problem that, whilst Conservatives would be happy with a no subsidies agreement between sovereign equals, the Prime Minister's Brain isn't a Conservative and sees the freedom to squirt subsidies at vital mates industries as a large part of the point of Brexit?
We'll go straight from a Brexit deal into a UK constitutional crisis.
That’s a very interesting article. If the Claim of Right cannot be overruled by Westminster then its arguably the only “Higher Law” in the United Kingdom! I can hear @HYUFD frothing at the concept from here.
And it's based on either a misapprehension or a further lie:
Certain decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, either with the permission of the Inner House or, if the Inner House has refused permission, with the permission of the UK Supreme Court.
So the claims about Scots law and the International Court of Justice are meaningless.
The Supreme Court of the UK overruling the Court of Session on an absolubtely fundamental point of Scots law in favour of the UK Gov't would be outrageous. And furthermore given the way the progogation case went I'd say unlikely.
Headline - 5 7 days - 3 Yesterday - 0 Day before yesterday - 0
The Reaper is on strike or something?
I think the reason PHE have been disbanded is that they were just making up their daily death number just to embarrass the Government.
Unlikely. What's more likely is they were doing what they said they were doing, counting all deaths without a cut-off point.
They said around the time of the change that the methodology was originally deliberately chosen to avoid undercounting deaths as much as possible. Which was arguably justified given the numbers in the ONS stats and Excess death stats*.
However at what point does somebody seriously start attempting to draw a distinction between "with Covid" and "caused by Covid"? Even the latest moderated 28 day figures don't do that! The country and world has gone through unprecedented upheaval because of this virus. Doesn't there come a point when people need to start asking whether all that should matter is "caused by COVID" to justify this???
*although it could be pointed out that there is plenty of scope for the ONS stats, in particular, to be exaggerated (as they don't necessarily just count deaths where COVID is the "cause" of death, but those where it is noted as a "contributing factor"). Which at the height of the crisis anyone signing a death certificate with any sort of respiratory element was likely to include. And the excess deaths? Well what would be the normal impact on excess deaths of shutting hospitals for 4 months?
The UK approach will be a case study in how not to carry out negotiations for many years to come.
I can't believe the deal will really founder on state aid.
It's an abstract concept for most, not particularly politically high-stakes and most Conservatives don't particularly like it anyway.
What's the objection to agreeing a "level playing field"? It sounds very fair and no-one except Bill Cash knows what it means so there is no downside for Boris.
I think - in fairness to even this lot - the problem is that what the EU is proposing is not 'a level playing field,' but rather that we do nothing to undercut them with no such reciprocal reassurance. Such an assurance would be very necessary given the EU simply cannot be trusted on matters to do with trade, as it has demonstrated many times.
If there were a genuine level playing field on offer, that would be a different matter.
Headline - 5 7 days - 3 Yesterday - 0 Day before yesterday - 0
The Reaper is on strike or something?
I think the reason PHE have been disbanded is that they were just making up their daily death number just to embarrass the Government.
Unlikely. What's more likely is they were doing what they said they were doing, counting all deaths without a cut-off point.
They said around the time of the change that the methodology was originally deliberately chosen to avoid undercounting deaths as much as possible. Which was arguably justified given the numbers in the ONS stats and Excess death stats*.
However at what point does somebody seriously start attempting to draw a distinction between "with Covid" and "caused by Covid"? Even the latest moderated 28 day figures don't do that! The country and world has gone through unprecedented upheaval because of this virus. Doesn't there come a point when people need to start asking whether all that should matter is "caused by COVID" to justify this???
*although it could be pointed out that there is plenty of scope for the ONS stats, in particular, to be exaggerated (as they don't necessarily just count deaths where COVID is the "cause" of death, but those where it is noted as a "contributing factor"). Which at the height of the crisis anyone signing a death certificate with any sort of respiratory element was likely to include. And the excess deaths? Well what would be the normal impact on excess deaths of shutting hospitals for 4 months?
The various measures for COVID, plotted against each other, week by week -
We'll go straight from a Brexit deal into a UK constitutional crisis.
That’s a very interesting article. If the Claim of Right cannot be overruled by Westminster then its arguably the only “Higher Law” in the United Kingdom! I can hear @HYUFD frothing at the concept from here.
And it's based on either a misapprehension or a further lie:
Certain decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, either with the permission of the Inner House or, if the Inner House has refused permission, with the permission of the UK Supreme Court.
So the claims about Scots law and the International Court of Justice are meaningless.
The Supreme Court of the UK overruling the Court of Session on an absolubtely fundamental point of Scots law in favour of the UK Gov't would be outrageous. And furthermore given the way the progogation case went I'd say unlikely.
Well the Supreme Court is supposed to judge Scots law cases on Scots law, and comprises of senior Scottish judges including the current President Lord Reed...
The Supreme Court is the appeal court of the Court of Session!
The UK approach will be a case study in how not to carry out negotiations for many years to come.
I can't believe the deal will really founder on state aid.
It's an abstract concept for most, not particularly politically high-stakes and most Conservatives don't particularly like it anyway.
Isn't the problem that, whilst Conservatives would be happy with a no subsidies agreement between sovereign equals, the Prime Minister's Brain isn't a Conservative and sees the freedom to squirt subsidies at vital mates industries as a large part of the point of Brexit?
The UK should agree to it, and then become EXTREMELY activist in ensuring that EU countries actually abide by it! Part of the problem with many of the EU rules has always been that the UK have been far less flexible in how they interpret the rules than other countries.
We'll go straight from a Brexit deal into a UK constitutional crisis.
That’s a very interesting article. If the Claim of Right cannot be overruled by Westminster then its arguably the only “Higher Law” in the United Kingdom! I can hear @HYUFD frothing at the concept from here.
And it's based on either a misapprehension or a further lie:
Certain decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, either with the permission of the Inner House or, if the Inner House has refused permission, with the permission of the UK Supreme Court.
So the claims about Scots law and the International Court of Justice are meaningless.
The Supreme Court of the UK overruling the Court of Session on an absolubtely fundamental point of Scots law in favour of the UK Gov't would be outrageous. And furthermore given the way the progogation case went I'd say unlikely.
But it isn't Scots law, is it? The Scotland Act 1998 is a British law.
And in any case, the claim was that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in Scotland and was subordinate in legal matters to the Court of Sessions, which the Court of Sessions itself notes is not true.
It then also tries to claim that the International Court would decide, which it could not and would not as Scotland is clearly not a member of the UN.
It's typical wishful thinking, special pleading and sophistry from a propagandist and liar dressed up as serious analysis. Like Aaron Banks, but with an added edge of stupidity.
I think we are all past caring of how accident prone this government appears. If people start dying unnecessarily again we might take it seriously once more.
Can you imagine the furore if the Government has said last Wednesday that they were just going to go with teachers predicted grades. If you read some of Ofqual comments over the weekend some colleges/schools vastly inflated predicted grades to a silly level. The press would have been all over it saying that the whole A level system had been devalued. The Government almost had to try the formula and let it fail so that they could go with the easy option. The A Level results have been devalued now but by tomorrow no one will be talikng about it anymore. If they had just gone with the teachers grades the bad press would have carried on for ages with the Daily Mail finding evidence of some schools where everyone was predicted an A in every subject when their previous avergae was a C.
I do like the look of your rose tinted spectacles!
Just look at the questions being asked about the GCSE's now?
Its not rose tinted, its the way the press now works.
The press tried yesterday afternoon the moment the U Turn was annouced with interviews with people complaing about grade inflation and lack of University places. These petered out because of the problem with the algorithim. If the algoritim had not happened then the inflated grade issue would have gone on for weeks
Voters children and their educational prospects are a potential elephant trap. Swinney fell into it a week before and no lessons were learned in England and Wales it seems.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
I don't know enough about Quebec to comment, but if society has healed and people have moved on on the basis of those numbers, it says a lot about the people there.
Quebec has devomax now effectively which has helped
The SNP have not even taken up all the powers they have been offered by Westminster. Apparently it takes 5 years to set up the systems to run welfare powers, but a new nation takes 18 months.
More utter unionist tripe. It is the UK that needs to provide the access to their shit systems that is at fault. Lady Haw Haw once again, are you physically able of telling the truth.
If they're shit, why do you want access to them?
I was merely quoting the nay sayers and ne'er do wells on here who constantly tell us they are shit, Scotland is shit, Scotland is only country in world that could not have a currency , only country unable to be independent and on and on and on.
Of course Scotland can have its own currency.
The issue is that last time the SNP said that Scotland wouldn't have its own currency and instead would be in a Sterling currency union which isn't a real thing.
There is no reason at all Scotland can't have its own currency, its just on the Scottish government to create it. Easily done, they just have to do it.
Why can't the Scotting Pound Sterling be like those of the Isle of Man, Gibraltar etc etc. You say that Sterling isn't a currency union, yet the Bank of England does not regulate issue of Pounds Sterling outside the UK despite those being convertible 1:1 with the various English, Scottish and NI issues of Sterling.
I can buy lots of Sterling issued coins from non-UK mints not regulated by the BofE and they are still Pounds Sterling.
De jure the Manx currency is not Sterling, it is no more legal tender than Mickey Mouse dollars are in Disneyland.
It is legal tender in the Isle of Man but it is not legal tender in the UK (though plenty will spend it and accept it as if it is). De facto its value is essentially tethered to Sterling which as we said earlier that's fine for a micronation but Scotland is more than just a micronation.
Scottish notes etc are different. They are Sterling and done with permission from the Bank of England with deposits in the Bank of England to match whatever is created.
Scottish Pounds aren't legal tender in England either!
Nor in Scotland, technically.
That's true, although de facto they are as they are universally accepted north of the border.
That's certainly not the case in England – almost no-one accepts them here in London bar the banks and major supermarkets. Last time I ended up with a Scots £20, I had to deposit it at the bank.
Scottish notes are widely accepted in Newcastle.
Yep, I lived there for six years. They were accepted even in pubs as I recall – so used were barmaids to seeing them. Not the case here!
The UK approach will be a case study in how not to carry out negotiations for many years to come.
I can't believe the deal will really founder on state aid.
It's an abstract concept for most, not particularly politically high-stakes and most Conservatives don't particularly like it anyway.
What's the objection to agreeing a "level playing field"? It sounds very fair and no-one except Bill Cash knows what it means so there is no downside for Boris.
Some of it is fair enough - you don't want a country hugely subsidising its domestic export industries to then undercut and scour out competition overseas through abusing free trade agreements to make it a monopoly - but I wonder how much real potential for the UK and EU there is to do this to each other.
China absolutely does it and (so far) has got away with it because it's big and ugly enough so it can, and the West hasn't been paying attention.
The UK approach will be a case study in how not to carry out negotiations for many years to come.
I can't believe the deal will really founder on state aid.
It's an abstract concept for most, not particularly politically high-stakes and most Conservatives don't particularly like it anyway.
Isn't the problem that, whilst Conservatives would be happy with a no subsidies agreement between sovereign equals, the Prime Minister's Brain isn't a Conservative and sees the freedom to squirt subsidies at vital mates industries as a large part of the point of Brexit?
I suspect it's something Cummings has a view on, who's influencing him, but I don't really know.
The UK approach will be a case study in how not to carry out negotiations for many years to come.
I can't believe the deal will really founder on state aid.
It's an abstract concept for most, not particularly politically high-stakes and most Conservatives don't particularly like it anyway.
What's the objection to agreeing a "level playing field"? It sounds very fair and no-one except Bill Cash knows what it means so there is no downside for Boris.
I think - in fairness to even this lot - the problem is that what the EU is proposing is not 'a level playing field,' but rather that we do nothing to undercut them with no such reciprocal reassurance. Such an assurance would be very necessary given the EU simply cannot be trusted on matters to do with trade, as it has demonstrated many times.
If there were a genuine level playing field on offer, that would be a different matter.
Isn't there also the issue that the EU could put in place new regulations that would require the UK to replicate to maintain the level playing field. ie. it's not just that the UK wouldn't be allowed to actively undercut the EU, but they couldn't passively do so either? (and as noted, without the UK having the reciprocal power). It's fair enough if it involves trading within the EU market, but not where it involves competition with the rest of the world.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
I don't know enough about Quebec to comment, but if society has healed and people have moved on on the basis of those numbers, it says a lot about the people there.
Quebec has devomax now effectively which has helped
The SNP have not even taken up all the powers they have been offered by Westminster. Apparently it takes 5 years to set up the systems to run welfare powers, but a new nation takes 18 months.
More utter unionist tripe. It is the UK that needs to provide the access to their shit systems that is at fault. Lady Haw Haw once again, are you physically able of telling the truth.
If they're shit, why do you want access to them?
I was merely quoting the nay sayers and ne'er do wells on here who constantly tell us they are shit, Scotland is shit, Scotland is only country in world that could not have a currency , only country unable to be independent and on and on and on.
Of course Scotland can have its own currency.
The issue is that last time the SNP said that Scotland wouldn't have its own currency and instead would be in a Sterling currency union which isn't a real thing.
There is no reason at all Scotland can't have its own currency, its just on the Scottish government to create it. Easily done, they just have to do it.
Why can't the Scotting Pound Sterling be like those of the Isle of Man, Gibraltar etc etc. You say that Sterling isn't a currency union, yet the Bank of England does not regulate issue of Pounds Sterling outside the UK despite those being convertible 1:1 with the various English, Scottish and NI issues of Sterling.
I can buy lots of Sterling issued coins from non-UK mints not regulated by the BofE and they are still Pounds Sterling.
De jure the Manx currency is not Sterling, it is no more legal tender than Mickey Mouse dollars are in Disneyland.
It is legal tender in the Isle of Man but it is not legal tender in the UK (though plenty will spend it and accept it as if it is). De facto its value is essentially tethered to Sterling which as we said earlier that's fine for a micronation but Scotland is more than just a micronation.
Scottish notes etc are different. They are Sterling and done with permission from the Bank of England with deposits in the Bank of England to match whatever is created.
Scottish Pounds aren't legal tender in England either!
Nor in Scotland, technically.
That's true, although de facto they are as they are universally accepted north of the border.
That's certainly not the case in England – almost no-one accepts them here in London bar the banks and major supermarkets. Last time I ended up with a Scots £20, I had to deposit it at the bank.
Typical Fcukwits in that sh*thole.
I have never had a problem spending Scottish money in London.
I think we are all past caring of how accident prone this government appears. If people start dying unnecessarily again we might take it seriously once more.
Can you imagine the furore if the Government has said last Wednesday that they were just going to go with teachers predicted grades. If you read some of Ofqual comments over the weekend some colleges/schools vastly inflated predicted grades to a silly level. The press would have been all over it saying that the whole A level system had been devalued. The Government almost had to try the formula and let it fail so that they could go with the easy option. The A Level results have been devalued now but by tomorrow no one will be talikng about it anymore. If they had just gone with the teachers grades the bad press would have carried on for ages with the Daily Mail finding evidence of some schools where everyone was predicted an A in every subject when their previous avergae was a C.
I do like the look of your rose tinted spectacles!
Just look at the questions being asked about the GCSE's now?
Its not rose tinted, its the way the press now works.
The press tried yesterday afternoon the moment the U Turn was annouced with interviews with people complaing about grade inflation and lack of University places. These petered out because of the problem with the algorithim. If the algoritim had not happened then the inflated grade issue would have gone on for weeks
Voters children and their educational prospects are a potential elephant trap. Swinney fell into it a week before and no lessons were learned in England and Wales it seems.
Whatever they did would have been wrong, I think they went for the algorithim to see how it went, if there was uproar then they would go back to the Scottish way out of just using teachers grades. I think they needed to show that they had tried something as the teachers grades are in some cases generous in an absurd way.
Headline - 5 7 days - 3 Yesterday - 0 Day before yesterday - 0
The Reaper is on strike or something?
I think the reason PHE have been disbanded is that they were just making up their daily death number just to embarrass the Government.
Unlikely. What's more likely is they were doing what they said they were doing, counting all deaths without a cut-off point.
They said around the time of the change that the methodology was originally deliberately chosen to avoid undercounting deaths as much as possible. Which was arguably justified given the numbers in the ONS stats and Excess death stats*.
However at what point does somebody seriously start attempting to draw a distinction between "with Covid" and "caused by Covid"? Even the latest moderated 28 day figures don't do that! The country and world has gone through unprecedented upheaval because of this virus. Doesn't there come a point when people need to start asking whether all that should matter is "caused by COVID" to justify this???
*although it could be pointed out that there is plenty of scope for the ONS stats, in particular, to be exaggerated (as they don't necessarily just count deaths where COVID is the "cause" of death, but those where it is noted as a "contributing factor"). Which at the height of the crisis anyone signing a death certificate with any sort of respiratory element was likely to include. And the excess deaths? Well what would be the normal impact on excess deaths of shutting hospitals for 4 months?
I think it was a fair approach at the peak of the epidemic, but now you can be in the absurd situation that someone who tested positive three months ago who went on to die in a car accident is classified as a Covid-19 death.
The UK approach will be a case study in how not to carry out negotiations for many years to come.
I can't believe the deal will really founder on state aid.
It's an abstract concept for most, not particularly politically high-stakes and most Conservatives don't particularly like it anyway.
What's the objection to agreeing a "level playing field"? It sounds very fair and no-one except Bill Cash knows what it means so there is no downside for Boris.
I think - in fairness to even this lot - the problem is that what the EU is proposing is not 'a level playing field,' but rather that we do nothing to undercut them with no such reciprocal reassurance. Such an assurance would be very necessary given the EU simply cannot be trusted on matters to do with trade, as it has demonstrated many times.
If there were a genuine level playing field on offer, that would be a different matter.
Isn't there also the issue that the EU could put in place new regulations that would require the UK to replicate to maintain the level playing field. ie. it's not just that the UK wouldn't be allowed to actively undercut the EU, but they couldn't passively do so either? (and as noted, without the UK having the reciprocal power). It's fair enough if it involves trading within the EU market, but not where it involves competition with the rest of the world.
Yes, and that might lead to (for example) vicious laws on financial matters that would throttle the City, but I'm more worried about the uneven way they apply their own laws. We don't want anything like the worldwide beef ban again.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
I don't know enough about Quebec to comment, but if society has healed and people have moved on on the basis of those numbers, it says a lot about the people there.
Quebec has devomax now effectively which has helped
The SNP have not even taken up all the powers they have been offered by Westminster. Apparently it takes 5 years to set up the systems to run welfare powers, but a new nation takes 18 months.
More utter unionist tripe. It is the UK that needs to provide the access to their shit systems that is at fault. Lady Haw Haw once again, are you physically able of telling the truth.
If they're shit, why do you want access to them?
I was merely quoting the nay sayers and ne'er do wells on here who constantly tell us they are shit, Scotland is shit, Scotland is only country in world that could not have a currency , only country unable to be independent and on and on and on.
Of course Scotland can have its own currency.
The issue is that last time the SNP said that Scotland wouldn't have its own currency and instead would be in a Sterling currency union which isn't a real thing.
There is no reason at all Scotland can't have its own currency, its just on the Scottish government to create it. Easily done, they just have to do it.
Why can't the Scotting Pound Sterling be like those of the Isle of Man, Gibraltar etc etc. You say that Sterling isn't a currency union, yet the Bank of England does not regulate issue of Pounds Sterling outside the UK despite those being convertible 1:1 with the various English, Scottish and NI issues of Sterling.
I can buy lots of Sterling issued coins from non-UK mints not regulated by the BofE and they are still Pounds Sterling.
De jure the Manx currency is not Sterling, it is no more legal tender than Mickey Mouse dollars are in Disneyland.
It is legal tender in the Isle of Man but it is not legal tender in the UK (though plenty will spend it and accept it as if it is). De facto its value is essentially tethered to Sterling which as we said earlier that's fine for a micronation but Scotland is more than just a micronation.
Scottish notes etc are different. They are Sterling and done with permission from the Bank of England with deposits in the Bank of England to match whatever is created.
Scottish Pounds aren't legal tender in England either!
Nor in Scotland, technically.
That's true, although de facto they are as they are universally accepted north of the border.
That's certainly not the case in England – almost no-one accepts them here in London bar the banks and major supermarkets. Last time I ended up with a Scots £20, I had to deposit it at the bank.
Typical Fcukwits in that sh*thole.
I have never had a problem spending Scottish money in London.
Nor did Fred the Shred, of course.
(This is a joke, to be clear. I am not suggesting you are anything like the disgraced overpromoted failed love rat.)
Headline - 5 7 days - 3 Yesterday - 0 Day before yesterday - 0
The Reaper is on strike or something?
I think the reason PHE have been disbanded is that they were just making up their daily death number just to embarrass the Government.
Can anything embarrass this government?
The number of "extra" deaths recorded by PHE was just too high when their excuse was it was people who had tested positive for Covid, then recovered then died of something else not in hospital. It was regularly 300-400 more per week. Were there really that many people who fell into that criteria dying each week. It was a completly nonsense excuse.
Headline - 5 7 days - 3 Yesterday - 0 Day before yesterday - 0
The Reaper is on strike or something?
I think the reason PHE have been disbanded is that they were just making up their daily death number just to embarrass the Government.
Can anything embarrass this government?
The number of "extra" deaths recorded by PHE was just too high when their excuse was it was people who had tested positive for Covid, then recovered then died of something else not in hospital. It was regularly 300-400 more per week. Were there really that many people who fell into that criteria dying each week. It was a completly nonsense excuse.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
I don't know enough about Quebec to comment, but if society has healed and people have moved on on the basis of those numbers, it says a lot about the people there.
Quebec has devomax now effectively which has helped
The SNP have not even taken up all the powers they have been offered by Westminster. Apparently it takes 5 years to set up the systems to run welfare powers, but a new nation takes 18 months.
More utter unionist tripe. It is the UK that needs to provide the access to their shit systems that is at fault. Lady Haw Haw once again, are you physically able of telling the truth.
If they're shit, why do you want access to them?
I was merely quoting the nay sayers and ne'er do wells on here who constantly tell us they are shit, Scotland is shit, Scotland is only country in world that could not have a currency , only country unable to be independent and on and on and on.
Of course Scotland can have its own currency.
The issue is that last time the SNP said that Scotland wouldn't have its own currency and instead would be in a Sterling currency union which isn't a real thing.
There is no reason at all Scotland can't have its own currency, its just on the Scottish government to create it. Easily done, they just have to do it.
Why can't the Scotting Pound Sterling be like those of the Isle of Man, Gibraltar etc etc. You say that Sterling isn't a currency union, yet the Bank of England does not regulate issue of Pounds Sterling outside the UK despite those being convertible 1:1 with the various English, Scottish and NI issues of Sterling.
I can buy lots of Sterling issued coins from non-UK mints not regulated by the BofE and they are still Pounds Sterling.
De jure the Manx currency is not Sterling, it is no more legal tender than Mickey Mouse dollars are in Disneyland.
It is legal tender in the Isle of Man but it is not legal tender in the UK (though plenty will spend it and accept it as if it is). De facto its value is essentially tethered to Sterling which as we said earlier that's fine for a micronation but Scotland is more than just a micronation.
Scottish notes etc are different. They are Sterling and done with permission from the Bank of England with deposits in the Bank of England to match whatever is created.
Scottish Pounds aren't legal tender in England either!
Nor in Scotland, technically.
That's true, although de facto they are as they are universally accepted north of the border.
That's certainly not the case in England – almost no-one accepts them here in London bar the banks and major supermarkets. Last time I ended up with a Scots £20, I had to deposit it at the bank.
Typical Fcukwits in that sh*thole.
I have never had a problem spending Scottish money in London.
Nor did Fred the Shred, of course.
(This is a joke, to be clear. I am not suggesting you are anything like the disgraced overpromoted failed love rat.)
Actually I guess the people with the best record of spending Scottish money in London were the Thatcher government.
Headline - 5 7 days - 3 Yesterday - 0 Day before yesterday - 0
The Reaper is on strike or something?
I think the reason PHE have been disbanded is that they were just making up their daily death number just to embarrass the Government.
Can anything embarrass this government?
The number of "extra" deaths recorded by PHE was just too high when their excuse was it was people who had tested positive for Covid, then recovered then died of something else not in hospital. It was regularly 300-400 more per week. Were there really that many people who fell into that criteria dying each week. It was a completly nonsense excuse.
They should have just used an algorithm on it.
They did:
if test == positive & person == dead then covid_deaths +=1
I think we are all past caring of how accident prone this government appears. If people start dying unnecessarily again we might take it seriously once more.
Can you imagine the furore if the Government has said last Wednesday that they were just going to go with teachers predicted grades. If you read some of Ofqual comments over the weekend some colleges/schools vastly inflated predicted grades to a silly level. The press would have been all over it saying that the whole A level system had been devalued. The Government almost had to try the formula and let it fail so that they could go with the easy option. The A Level results have been devalued now but by tomorrow no one will be talikng about it anymore. If they had just gone with the teachers grades the bad press would have carried on for ages with the Daily Mail finding evidence of some schools where everyone was predicted an A in every subject when their previous avergae was a C.
I do like the look of your rose tinted spectacles!
Just look at the questions being asked about the GCSE's now?
Its not rose tinted, its the way the press now works.
The press tried yesterday afternoon the moment the U Turn was annouced with interviews with people complaing about grade inflation and lack of University places. These petered out because of the problem with the algorithim. If the algoritim had not happened then the inflated grade issue would have gone on for weeks
Voters children and their educational prospects are a potential elephant trap. Swinney fell into it a week before and no lessons were learned in England and Wales it seems.
Whatever they did would have been wrong, I think they went for the algorithim to see how it went, if there was uproar then they would go back to the Scottish way out of just using teachers grades. I think they needed to show that they had tried something as the teachers grades are in some cases generous in an absurd way.
That is exactly what a grumpy Drakeford said yesterday. I was right, bit I was forced to bow to unreasonable pressure.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
I don't know enough about Quebec to comment, but if society has healed and people have moved on on the basis of those numbers, it says a lot about the people there.
Quebec has devomax now effectively which has helped
The SNP have not even taken up all the powers they have been offered by Westminster. Apparently it takes 5 years to set up the systems to run welfare powers, but a new nation takes 18 months.
More utter unionist tripe. It is the UK that needs to provide the access to their shit systems that is at fault. Lady Haw Haw once again, are you physically able of telling the truth.
If they're shit, why do you want access to them?
I was merely quoting the nay sayers and ne'er do wells on here who constantly tell us they are shit, Scotland is shit, Scotland is only country in world that could not have a currency , only country unable to be independent and on and on and on.
Of course Scotland can have its own currency.
The issue is that last time the SNP said that Scotland wouldn't have its own currency and instead would be in a Sterling currency union which isn't a real thing.
There is no reason at all Scotland can't have its own currency, its just on the Scottish government to create it. Easily done, they just have to do it.
Why can't the Scotting Pound Sterling be like those of the Isle of Man, Gibraltar etc etc. You say that Sterling isn't a currency union, yet the Bank of England does not regulate issue of Pounds Sterling outside the UK despite those being convertible 1:1 with the various English, Scottish and NI issues of Sterling.
I can buy lots of Sterling issued coins from non-UK mints not regulated by the BofE and they are still Pounds Sterling.
De jure the Manx currency is not Sterling, it is no more legal tender than Mickey Mouse dollars are in Disneyland.
It is legal tender in the Isle of Man but it is not legal tender in the UK (though plenty will spend it and accept it as if it is). De facto its value is essentially tethered to Sterling which as we said earlier that's fine for a micronation but Scotland is more than just a micronation.
Scottish notes etc are different. They are Sterling and done with permission from the Bank of England with deposits in the Bank of England to match whatever is created.
Scottish Pounds aren't legal tender in England either!
Nor in Scotland, technically.
That's true, although de facto they are as they are universally accepted north of the border.
That's certainly not the case in England – almost no-one accepts them here in London bar the banks and major supermarkets. Last time I ended up with a Scots £20, I had to deposit it at the bank.
Typical Fcukwits in that sh*thole.
I have never had a problem spending Scottish money in London.
Nor did Fred the Shred, of course.
(This is a joke, to be clear. I am not suggesting you are anything like the disgraced overpromoted failed love rat.)
Actually I guess the people with the best record of spending Scottish money in London were the Thatcher government.
Headline - 5 7 days - 3 Yesterday - 0 Day before yesterday - 0
The Reaper is on strike or something?
I think the reason PHE have been disbanded is that they were just making up their daily death number just to embarrass the Government.
Can anything embarrass this government?
The number of "extra" deaths recorded by PHE was just too high when their excuse was it was people who had tested positive for Covid, then recovered then died of something else not in hospital. It was regularly 300-400 more per week. Were there really that many people who fell into that criteria dying each week. It was a completly nonsense excuse.
They should have just used an algorithm on it.
They did:
if test == positive & person == dead then covid_deaths +=1
I think we are all past caring of how accident prone this government appears. If people start dying unnecessarily again we might take it seriously once more.
Can you imagine the furore if the Government has said last Wednesday that they were just going to go with teachers predicted grades. If you read some of Ofqual comments over the weekend some colleges/schools vastly inflated predicted grades to a silly level. The press would have been all over it saying that the whole A level system had been devalued. The Government almost had to try the formula and let it fail so that they could go with the easy option. The A Level results have been devalued now but by tomorrow no one will be talikng about it anymore. If they had just gone with the teachers grades the bad press would have carried on for ages with the Daily Mail finding evidence of some schools where everyone was predicted an A in every subject when their previous avergae was a C.
I do like the look of your rose tinted spectacles!
Just look at the questions being asked about the GCSE's now?
Its not rose tinted, its the way the press now works.
The press tried yesterday afternoon the moment the U Turn was annouced with interviews with people complaing about grade inflation and lack of University places. These petered out because of the problem with the algorithim. If the algoritim had not happened then the inflated grade issue would have gone on for weeks
Voters children and their educational prospects are a potential elephant trap. Swinney fell into it a week before and no lessons were learned in England and Wales it seems.
Whatever they did would have been wrong, I think they went for the algorithim to see how it went, if there was uproar then they would go back to the Scottish way out of just using teachers grades. I think they needed to show that they had tried something as the teachers grades are in some cases generous in an absurd way.
That is exactly what a grumpy Drakeford said yesterday. I was right, bit I was forced to bow to unreasonable pressure.
The league tables this year could be, er, illuminating...
I think we are all past caring of how accident prone this government appears. If people start dying unnecessarily again we might take it seriously once more.
Can you imagine the furore if the Government has said last Wednesday that they were just going to go with teachers predicted grades. If you read some of Ofqual comments over the weekend some colleges/schools vastly inflated predicted grades to a silly level. The press would have been all over it saying that the whole A level system had been devalued. The Government almost had to try the formula and let it fail so that they could go with the easy option. The A Level results have been devalued now but by tomorrow no one will be talikng about it anymore. If they had just gone with the teachers grades the bad press would have carried on for ages with the Daily Mail finding evidence of some schools where everyone was predicted an A in every subject when their previous avergae was a C.
I do like the look of your rose tinted spectacles!
Just look at the questions being asked about the GCSE's now?
Its not rose tinted, its the way the press now works.
The press tried yesterday afternoon the moment the U Turn was annouced with interviews with people complaing about grade inflation and lack of University places. These petered out because of the problem with the algorithim. If the algoritim had not happened then the inflated grade issue would have gone on for weeks
Voters children and their educational prospects are a potential elephant trap. Swinney fell into it a week before and no lessons were learned in England and Wales it seems.
Whatever they did would have been wrong, I think they went for the algorithim to see how it went, if there was uproar then they would go back to the Scottish way out of just using teachers grades. I think they needed to show that they had tried something as the teachers grades are in some cases generous in an absurd way.
That is exactly what a grumpy Drakeford said yesterday. I was right, bit I was forced to bow to unreasonable pressure.
The problem of course was that there was no serious moderation process on teachers grades. The algorithm WAS the moderation process. It wasn't a case of one or the other.
This clearly should have been anticipated. And teachers and schools should have had clear guidelines set in advance for their grades, and should have been challenged directly where they seemed excessive. The algorithm could have played a part in this, in highlighting anomalies, but should never have been the solution itself.
Headline - 5 7 days - 3 Yesterday - 0 Day before yesterday - 0
The Reaper is on strike or something?
I think the reason PHE have been disbanded is that they were just making up their daily death number just to embarrass the Government.
Unlikely. What's more likely is they were doing what they said they were doing, counting all deaths without a cut-off point.
They said around the time of the change that the methodology was originally deliberately chosen to avoid undercounting deaths as much as possible. Which was arguably justified given the numbers in the ONS stats and Excess death stats*.
However at what point does somebody seriously start attempting to draw a distinction between "with Covid" and "caused by Covid"? Even the latest moderated 28 day figures don't do that! The country and world has gone through unprecedented upheaval because of this virus. Doesn't there come a point when people need to start asking whether all that should matter is "caused by COVID" to justify this???
*although it could be pointed out that there is plenty of scope for the ONS stats, in particular, to be exaggerated (as they don't necessarily just count deaths where COVID is the "cause" of death, but those where it is noted as a "contributing factor"). Which at the height of the crisis anyone signing a death certificate with any sort of respiratory element was likely to include. And the excess deaths? Well what would be the normal impact on excess deaths of shutting hospitals for 4 months?
The various measures for COVID, plotted against each other, week by week -
Thank you for sharing that graph. I reckon if we use Excess Deaths up to Week 20 then ONS thereafter then we've got the best measure of Covid deaths.
Some kind person might like to calculate that while I'm in the garden!
Headline - 5 7 days - 3 Yesterday - 0 Day before yesterday - 0
The Reaper is on strike or something?
I think the reason PHE have been disbanded is that they were just making up their daily death number just to embarrass the Government.
Unlikely. What's more likely is they were doing what they said they were doing, counting all deaths without a cut-off point.
They said around the time of the change that the methodology was originally deliberately chosen to avoid undercounting deaths as much as possible. Which was arguably justified given the numbers in the ONS stats and Excess death stats*.
However at what point does somebody seriously start attempting to draw a distinction between "with Covid" and "caused by Covid"? Even the latest moderated 28 day figures don't do that! The country and world has gone through unprecedented upheaval because of this virus. Doesn't there come a point when people need to start asking whether all that should matter is "caused by COVID" to justify this???
*although it could be pointed out that there is plenty of scope for the ONS stats, in particular, to be exaggerated (as they don't necessarily just count deaths where COVID is the "cause" of death, but those where it is noted as a "contributing factor"). Which at the height of the crisis anyone signing a death certificate with any sort of respiratory element was likely to include. And the excess deaths? Well what would be the normal impact on excess deaths of shutting hospitals for 4 months?
The various measures for COVID, plotted against each other, week by week -
Thank you for sharing that graph. I reckon if we use Excess Deaths up to Week 20 then ONS thereafter then we've got the best measure of Covid deaths.
Some kind person might like to calculate that while I'm in the garden!
A question - if COVID never existed, but the Health service was shut down for everything except emergency surgery for four months in an average year, what do you think the excess deaths figure would be?
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
I don't know enough about Quebec to comment, but if society has healed and people have moved on on the basis of those numbers, it says a lot about the people there.
Quebec has devomax now effectively which has helped
The SNP have not even taken up all the powers they have been offered by Westminster. Apparently it takes 5 years to set up the systems to run welfare powers, but a new nation takes 18 months.
More utter unionist tripe. It is the UK that needs to provide the access to their shit systems that is at fault. Lady Haw Haw once again, are you physically able of telling the truth.
If they're shit, why do you want access to them?
I was merely quoting the nay sayers and ne'er do wells on here who constantly tell us they are shit, Scotland is shit, Scotland is only country in world that could not have a currency , only country unable to be independent and on and on and on.
Of course Scotland can have its own currency.
The issue is that last time the SNP said that Scotland wouldn't have its own currency and instead would be in a Sterling currency union which isn't a real thing.
There is no reason at all Scotland can't have its own currency, its just on the Scottish government to create it. Easily done, they just have to do it.
Why can't the Scotting Pound Sterling be like those of the Isle of Man, Gibraltar etc etc. You say that Sterling isn't a currency union, yet the Bank of England does not regulate issue of Pounds Sterling outside the UK despite those being convertible 1:1 with the various English, Scottish and NI issues of Sterling.
I can buy lots of Sterling issued coins from non-UK mints not regulated by the BofE and they are still Pounds Sterling.
De jure the Manx currency is not Sterling, it is no more legal tender than Mickey Mouse dollars are in Disneyland.
It is legal tender in the Isle of Man but it is not legal tender in the UK (though plenty will spend it and accept it as if it is). De facto its value is essentially tethered to Sterling which as we said earlier that's fine for a micronation but Scotland is more than just a micronation.
Scottish notes etc are different. They are Sterling and done with permission from the Bank of England with deposits in the Bank of England to match whatever is created.
Scottish Pounds aren't legal tender in England either!
Nor in Scotland, technically.
That's true, although de facto they are as they are universally accepted north of the border.
That's certainly not the case in England – almost no-one accepts them here in London bar the banks and major supermarkets. Last time I ended up with a Scots £20, I had to deposit it at the bank.
Typical Fcukwits in that sh*thole.
I have never had a problem spending Scottish money in London.
Where? Touristy places and supermarkets take them. Few other places do.
We'll go straight from a Brexit deal into a UK constitutional crisis.
That’s a very interesting article. If the Claim of Right cannot be overruled by Westminster then its arguably the only “Higher Law” in the United Kingdom! I can hear @HYUFD frothing at the concept from here.
And it's based on either a misapprehension or a further lie:
Certain decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, either with the permission of the Inner House or, if the Inner House has refused permission, with the permission of the UK Supreme Court.
So the claims about Scots law and the International Court of Justice are meaningless.
The argument for independence is largely an emotional one. The argument for the union must be primarily an emotional one. At the moment, it feels like unionists are telling a partner who is thinking about leaving that they'll never get a better partner and listing all the ways their life will be shit if they leave. That may be true, but it's not a winning argument.
Arguably it was in 2014
Yes it was, but only just. And only just winning isn't good enough for the next time. It needs to be sent packing, so we can all move on, and spend our time in better ways than disliking each other.
Quebec voted just 51% to stay in Canada in its second referendum in 1995 and has not had another since
I don't know enough about Quebec to comment, but if society has healed and people have moved on on the basis of those numbers, it says a lot about the people there.
Quebec has devomax now effectively which has helped
The SNP have not even taken up all the powers they have been offered by Westminster. Apparently it takes 5 years to set up the systems to run welfare powers, but a new nation takes 18 months.
More utter unionist tripe. It is the UK that needs to provide the access to their shit systems that is at fault. Lady Haw Haw once again, are you physically able of telling the truth.
If they're shit, why do you want access to them?
I was merely quoting the nay sayers and ne'er do wells on here who constantly tell us they are shit, Scotland is shit, Scotland is only country in world that could not have a currency , only country unable to be independent and on and on and on.
Of course Scotland can have its own currency.
The issue is that last time the SNP said that Scotland wouldn't have its own currency and instead would be in a Sterling currency union which isn't a real thing.
There is no reason at all Scotland can't have its own currency, its just on the Scottish government to create it. Easily done, they just have to do it.
Why can't the Scotting Pound Sterling be like those of the Isle of Man, Gibraltar etc etc. You say that Sterling isn't a currency union, yet the Bank of England does not regulate issue of Pounds Sterling outside the UK despite those being convertible 1:1 with the various English, Scottish and NI issues of Sterling.
I can buy lots of Sterling issued coins from non-UK mints not regulated by the BofE and they are still Pounds Sterling.
De jure the Manx currency is not Sterling, it is no more legal tender than Mickey Mouse dollars are in Disneyland.
It is legal tender in the Isle of Man but it is not legal tender in the UK (though plenty will spend it and accept it as if it is). De facto its value is essentially tethered to Sterling which as we said earlier that's fine for a micronation but Scotland is more than just a micronation.
Scottish notes etc are different. They are Sterling and done with permission from the Bank of England with deposits in the Bank of England to match whatever is created.
Scottish Pounds aren't legal tender in England either!
Nor in Scotland, technically.
That's true, although de facto they are as they are universally accepted north of the border.
That's certainly not the case in England – almost no-one accepts them here in London bar the banks and major supermarkets. Last time I ended up with a Scots £20, I had to deposit it at the bank.
Typical Fcukwits in that sh*thole.
I have never had a problem spending Scottish money in London.
I did have a few years ago , just tell them to stick their goods up their jacksies and go where it is accepted. Most businesses now would be glad of any spending. Have seen a few re fraud , think it was Scottish 20's down south and English 50's up here, but again was not recently.
We'll go straight from a Brexit deal into a UK constitutional crisis.
That’s a very interesting article. If the Claim of Right cannot be overruled by Westminster then its arguably the only “Higher Law” in the United Kingdom! I can hear @HYUFD frothing at the concept from here.
And it's based on either a misapprehension or a further lie:
Certain decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, either with the permission of the Inner House or, if the Inner House has refused permission, with the permission of the UK Supreme Court.
So the claims about Scots law and the International Court of Justice are meaningless.
We shall see
Just click on the link Malc and you can see for yourself right now.
We'll go straight from a Brexit deal into a UK constitutional crisis.
That’s a very interesting article. If the Claim of Right cannot be overruled by Westminster then its arguably the only “Higher Law” in the United Kingdom! I can hear @HYUFD frothing at the concept from here.
And it's based on either a misapprehension or a further lie:
Certain decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, either with the permission of the Inner House or, if the Inner House has refused permission, with the permission of the UK Supreme Court.
So the claims about Scots law and the International Court of Justice are meaningless.
We shall see
It is the most ridiculous rubbish. The Court of Session did not force the Supreme Court to do anything. The Court of Session is inferior to the Supreme Court (hint, the clue is in the name) and frequently overturns its decisions. This never used to apply in Criminal cases but following the introduction of the ECHR the Supreme Court can and does overturn criminal decisions as well if they involve Convention rights.
Comments
And furthermore given the way the progogation case went I'd say unlikely.
However at what point does somebody seriously start attempting to draw a distinction between "with Covid" and "caused by Covid"? Even the latest moderated 28 day figures don't do that! The country and world has gone through unprecedented upheaval because of this virus. Doesn't there come a point when people need to start asking whether all that should matter is "caused by COVID" to justify this???
*although it could be pointed out that there is plenty of scope for the ONS stats, in particular, to be exaggerated (as they don't necessarily just count deaths where COVID is the "cause" of death, but those where it is noted as a "contributing factor"). Which at the height of the crisis anyone signing a death certificate with any sort of respiratory element was likely to include. And the excess deaths? Well what would be the normal impact on excess deaths of shutting hospitals for 4 months?
https://twitter.com/RachelBitecofer/status/1295675105901793287?s=19
If there were a genuine level playing field on offer, that would be a different matter.
The Supreme Court is the appeal court of the Court of Session!
And in any case, the claim was that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in Scotland and was subordinate in legal matters to the Court of Sessions, which the Court of Sessions itself notes is not true.
It then also tries to claim that the International Court would decide, which it could not and would not as Scotland is clearly not a member of the UN.
It's typical wishful thinking, special pleading and sophistry from a propagandist and liar dressed up as serious analysis. Like Aaron Banks, but with an added edge of stupidity.
China absolutely does it and (so far) has got away with it because it's big and ugly enough so it can, and the West hasn't been paying attention.
(This is a joke, to be clear. I am not suggesting you are anything like the disgraced overpromoted failed love rat.)
if test == positive & person == dead then covid_deaths +=1
NEW THREAD
This is going to be popular!
This clearly should have been anticipated. And teachers and schools should have had clear guidelines set in advance for their grades, and should have been challenged directly where they seemed excessive. The algorithm could have played a part in this, in highlighting anomalies, but should never have been the solution itself.
Some kind person might like to calculate that while I'm in the garden!