» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
The level of paranoia and persecution that makes this a "lie" is really hard to deal with in any kind of rational way. But we are where we are.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.
If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.
Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
Pharmacies, dentists, why on Earth not mobilise everyone?. If the jabs are there, get it down quickly and simply. Alphabetical, by postcode, NI/NHS number.
Alphabetical is quite discriminatory.
There is evidence of this from schools, though becomes less marked in adult life, apart from citation indexes for academia.
Good news about the AZN vaccine, although I'm still feeling a bit angsty about the decision to basically extend the time between the two doses.
I hope that's a decision genuinely justified by/based on all the trial data, and isn't just a reaction to the threat posed by the new more transmissible variant.
I can’t think of a single thing more likely to cause civil unrest, than private vaccinations being available while restrictions on movement remain in place.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.
If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.
Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
Pharmacies, dentists, why on Earth not mobilise everyone?. If the jabs are there, get it down quickly and simply. Alphabetical, by postcode, NI/NHS number.
Alphabetical is quite discriminatory.
There is evidence of this from schools, though becomes less marked in adult life, apart from citation indexes for academia.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
Let me guess, ‘right minds’ will be those who want the nasty Natz to shut up and go away? Of course many of those right minds were Pom Pom girls for the 4 or 5 years that the UK has endured since the EU referendum.
Still, good to see the Unionist offer taking shape.
Nice to see you are so on the ball this morning Divvie.
Especially “joyous and civic”.
If Holyrood does withhold its consent motion does that have any practical implication or is it just fuel for the grievance machine?
I can’t think of a single thing more likely to cause civil unrest, than private vaccinations being available while restrictions on movement remain in place.
Oldies going on holiday while lockdown remains in place for working people comes close
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
I do hope that the people of Scotland do take notice of facts.
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
Whenever someone from Independent SAGE comes on TV I find myself getting quite annoyed. I'm all in favour of tighter restrictions but whenever that group or someone from that group gives their take, it's always the same message of "lockdown everyone and everything now until 80/90% of the population is vaccinated" with badly concealed glee that the numbers are going in the wrong direction thinking it proves their point. Sir David King basically saying that on BBC News in the last few mins.
We should definitely lock everything down for 6-8 weeks in my view, but demanding this stay in place until we've 80% of the population vaccinated shows they have no respect or understanding for those struggling from the economic effects of this.
It's a negotiation (via TV) where 1 side needs to make an insane approach so that the final deal looks reasonable.
Asking for a lock down until vaccination reaches x% means that a lock down of 8 weeks looks as good as the 2 weeks the other side started with.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.
If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.
Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
Pharmacies, dentists, why on Earth not mobilise everyone?. If the jabs are there, get it down quickly and simply. Alphabetical, by postcode, NI/NHS number.
Alphabetical is quite discriminatory.
There is evidence of this from schools, though becomes less marked in adult life, apart from citation indexes for academia.
I knew a bomber pilot from WWII who claimed he survived because his surname began with a V; by the time he was picked to start flying combat missions it was late ‘44 and the German air defences were largely neutralised.
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
I can’t think of a single thing more likely to cause civil unrest, than private vaccinations being available while restrictions on movement remain in place.
Oldies going on holiday while lockdown remains in place for working people comes close
Absolutely. Any restrictions on social activity should apply across the board until we are able to lift them for everyone. And I am sure the oldies will recognise and respect the sacrifices younger people have made to keep them safe.
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
This was literally the argument @Philip_Thompson used himself to justify everything the current administration has done. The guy is a hypocrite of the highest order.
I can’t think of a single thing more likely to cause civil unrest, than private vaccinations being available while restrictions on movement remain in place.
Oldies going on holiday while lockdown remains in place for working people comes close
Absolutely. Any restrictions on social activity should apply across the board until we are able to lift them for everyone. And I am sure the oldies will recognise and respect the sacrifices younger people have made to keep them safe.
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
You keep saying this and it doesn't miraculously make it true when you repeat the same guff. Labour and the Tories had manifesto pledges to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution Treaty which swept away the Treaty of Rome and everything else to kickstart the USE. That treaty was already dead by the time people voted in 2005. You can't hold a referendum on a dead treaty.
Lisbon - amending the Treaty of Rome - does some of the same things but is not the same thing. There was no United States of Europe nor a single treaty to rule them all. Neither Labour nor the Tories had a pledge to hold a referendum about any treaty of any description. So bleating on about Lisbon being a treaty breach is very, well, you...
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.
If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.
Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
Don’t the main private providers (eg ELCG) use contracted nurses? I’m not sure there is a reservoir of new trained staff to give the vaccines
It would make sense to use the pharmacy channel but that’s only technically “private” in my view.
I agree about using pharmacies, but why are they only 'technically' private? In my practicing time, certainly at the beginning, they were in a comparable situation to GP's and dentists...... individual practitioners contracted to provide services. There were exceptions.... Boots, the Co-op etc .......but the proportion was something 70-30 towards the individual, or very small groups. However the position has now reversed; at least 70% of pharmacies are controlled by 4 large organisations, and at least two of those organisations...... Boots and Lloyds ...... are owned by US corporations.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
🙋🏻♂
Do most Brexiteers regret what the country has endured in the last 4 to 5 years? Or do they view it as a price worth paying to get laws applying to this country made in this country?
Seems logical for the Scots to do the same.
Speaking for myself I have often reflected on whether this has been worth it. The division in the country, the neglect of many far more important issues, the loss of an excellent PM and Chancellor, Mrs May, there is much to regret. I am glad we are finally at the end of the process (well, sort of) but if I had known how badly this country was going to be divided by this would I have voted for it in the first place? Tbh, my answer varies from day to day.
What I am much clearer about is that this is the last thing Scotland needs (and it would be multiple times more difficult) right now. Last time around we did significant damage to our tax base and financial services industry even although we voted to remain. But I am a democrat and will accept the decision of the majority in May.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Technical point Lisbon was not in the 2005 manifesto. Brexit binds its successors more than Lisbon ever did.
Hard to have something in the manifesto which hadn't at that time been thought of. But don't confuse him.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
So you must hate general elections held every four/five years.
I bet you really hated Boris Johnson calling an election two years after the last one?
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
I do hope that the people of Scotland do take notice of facts.
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
Does the fact that Scots were told that if they wanted to stay in the EU they had to vote No, and then it turned out that the opposite was true, not bother you at all? If you were Scottish do you think you'd be OK with it?
My mother in law is 85 on 2nd January, frail and with a number of conditions. She has not yet got a date for her vaccination. In Scotland the first priority has been those in and working in Care homes, not the elderly as such. This is presumably a consequence of the guilt related to how badly they were neglected in the first wave when infected patients were dumped on them by hospitals clearing wards but it is indicative that there will be differences across the UK.
For me the absolute priority is speed. I don't want people faffing about trying to work out who's turn it is. Vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible and pray that this stops the recipients being transmitters.
The Pfizer vaccine requirements are such that vaccinating care homes is about the only easy option available to use them. You simply can't split it into small enough doses to vaccinate old people living at home.
The Oxford vaccine doesn't have the storage issues so will be far easier to administer to individuals.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
I do hope that the people of Scotland do take notice of facts.
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
How ungracious, I’ve just said that I wanted the people of Scotland to hear more from people like you* and tbf there’s no chance that they won’t.
There is an argument for high profile slebs to be able to jump the queue, if it convinces lots of anti-vaxxers to take it.
We have enough high profile celebrities in their eighties or even nineties that no queue jumping is required, just have cameras on hand when they get their jab:
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
Good news about the AZN vaccine, although I'm still feeling a bit angsty about the decision to basically extend the time between the two doses.
I hope that's a decision genuinely justified by/based on all the trial data, and isn't just a reaction to the threat posed by the new more transmissible variant.
In the cov002 arm of the study (the bit with the half dose error) the median time between injections was 84 days. Maybe the half dose was a red herring, and increased efficacy came from the longer gap?
Ideally we would have better studies, but this is far from an ideal time. I would worry more about the thin evidence base for the over 55s.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?
Astra Zeneca haven’t submitted an application yet - and when they do I suspect the EMA will take its time.
I’m surprised at that. I suspect the EU is being misleading.
Typically you don’t officially “submit an application” until *all the data* is available. The regulators don’t start looking until that point because they want to look at the totality of the data.
The MHRA allowed what is called a “rolling submission” - you file each chapter (tox, preclinical, CMC, clinical etc) as it is available.
I don’t know whether the EMA allowed a rolling submission for Jenner/AZ but I would be surprised if they didn’t.
My guess is that the EMA is engaging in some pre-emptive blame shifting relying on journalists taking them at face value and Astra not wanting get into a public fight with its regulator
Thanks - do you think EMA capacity has been affected by their bolt from London?
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
Such as holding rerun general elections in 2017 and 2019 because the party that won them didn't like the result. That kind of thing.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Can only say unionist bollox, dress up the turd as much as you like , it is still a turd.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
I do hope that the people of Scotland do take notice of facts.
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
Does the fact that Scots were told that if they wanted to stay in the EU they had to vote No, and then it turned out that the opposite was true, not bother you at all? If you were Scottish do you think you'd be OK with it?
If I were Scottish I imagine I would have felt the same heart-head tug in the referendum, and the point that a No vote would save Scotland from leaving the EU would likely have cemented my No vote. So I can understand why people in that position would be feeling pretty miffed seeing how things have turned out.
At the least, it was highly disingenuous at the time of the Indy Ref for the same people who were pushing and intending to try and get the UK to leave the EU, to be using EU membership as an argument on their side.
SNP forcing a division over time allocated for discussion
Sky saying it is a pointless division as it will receive a thumping majority for the time motion
When the government have a majority of 80 any division is a pointless division. Why bother holding a vote at the end of the debate at all? The government will win by a thumping majority.
Good news about the AZN vaccine, although I'm still feeling a bit angsty about the decision to basically extend the time between the two doses.
I hope that's a decision genuinely justified by/based on all the trial data, and isn't just a reaction to the threat posed by the new more transmissible variant.
Why? If the first dose does give some protection the priority must be to give the first dose to as many people as possible. As it happens there is some evidence that the increased gap may even be beneficial but even if it wasn't I don't understand your logic.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
🙋🏻♂
Do most Brexiteers regret what the country has endured in the last 4 to 5 years? Or do they view it as a price worth paying to get laws applying to this country made in this country?
Have we covered Congressman-elect Letlow's untimely COVID death yet? Obviously, a lesser political story than were it a Senator, but still deserving of a nod here.
Mentioned on the previous thread - but its shocking, diagnosed 18th, hospitalised 19th, ICU 23rd, dead 29th. Young (41) and not evidently obese, or any publicly disclosed co-morbidities...
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
How did the EU make laws irreversible? Any EU law can be replaced by another EU law in the same way that any UK law can. Of course one part of the EU cannot change it unilaterally, just as Lincolnshire can't unilaterally change UK law. What's wrong with that? The UK is too small to deal with the big problems on its own, and too big to be responsive to local concerns, like those of London. It's absurd to fetishise one layer of decision making (the nation state) over all others - especially when the nation state is as dysfunctional and shit as ours.
It made them irreversible by our democratically elected chamber.
The UK is our country not Lincolnshire nor the EU. If you want the country to be the EU then make an argument for a single European country - and ensure the EU is democratically run. If you want Lincolnshire independence then make that your country and make a case for that,
The reason the nation state is more important is that it is democratically elected and debated. We have a government because of a General Election that debated the issues before us and one side won it.
Ursula von der Leyen is good at her job unlike her predecessor but she didn't get it due to an EU election. She wasn't even a candidate at the election.
My mother in law is 85 on 2nd January, frail and with a number of conditions. She has not yet got a date for her vaccination. In Scotland the first priority has been those in and working in Care homes, not the elderly as such. This is presumably a consequence of the guilt related to how badly they were neglected in the first wave when infected patients were dumped on them by hospitals clearing wards but it is indicative that there will be differences across the UK.
For me the absolute priority is speed. I don't want people faffing about trying to work out who's turn it is. Vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible and pray that this stops the recipients being transmitters.
Extremely cheap shot David, worthy of the nasty party mind you, I thought you were better than that.
No one seriously ill out of 20000 sounds like it works extremely well even if its technical effectiveness is lower.
I get a handful of colds each year, I don't mind if one of those happens to be covid if my chances of getting seriously ill from it is less than 1 in 20000.
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
Even banning all future elections?
It would be the act of a democratically-elected government so yes.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.
If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.
Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
Don’t the main private providers (eg ELCG) use contracted nurses? I’m not sure there is a reservoir of new trained staff to give the vaccines
It would make sense to use the pharmacy channel but that’s only technically “private” in my view.
I agree about using pharmacies, but why are they only 'technically' private? In my practicing time, certainly at the beginning, they were in a comparable situation to GP's and dentists...... individual practitioners contracted to provide services. There were exceptions.... Boots, the Co-op etc .......but the proportion was something 70-30 towards the individual, or very small groups. However the position has now reversed; at least 70% of pharmacies are controlled by 4 large organisations, and at least two of those organisations...... Boots and Lloyds ...... are owned by US corporations.
In this case you would likely have a mass contract to provide vaccination in a order determined by the government and funded by them. That would be a subcontractor relationship in my view rather than the vaccine being “available privately” in any meaningful sense.
(I’m not sure it is 70% held by the top 4 chains FWIW - from memory there are about 12-13k pharmacies, of which Boots had about 3k, Lloyds 1.5k, Rowlands and Co-op (I forget what they are called these days) about 500-600 each and then Day Lewis at 400.
There are a bunch a smaller chains but almost half are single site proprietor managed pharmacies)
Good news about the AZN vaccine, although I'm still feeling a bit angsty about the decision to basically extend the time between the two doses.
I hope that's a decision genuinely justified by/based on all the trial data, and isn't just a reaction to the threat posed by the new more transmissible variant.
Why? If the first dose does give some protection the priority must be to give the first dose to as many people as possible. As it happens there is some evidence that the increased gap may even be beneficial but even if it wasn't I don't understand your logic.
What of those in care homes? They still haven`t received the first jab and if they are now to wait 12 weeks to the second then does the time to when they can see visitors again gets lengthened?
My mother in law is 85 on 2nd January, frail and with a number of conditions. She has not yet got a date for her vaccination. In Scotland the first priority has been those in and working in Care homes, not the elderly as such. This is presumably a consequence of the guilt related to how badly they were neglected in the first wave when infected patients were dumped on them by hospitals clearing wards but it is indicative that there will be differences across the UK.
For me the absolute priority is speed. I don't want people faffing about trying to work out who's turn it is. Vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible and pray that this stops the recipients being transmitters.
Extremely cheap shot David, worthy of the nasty party mind you, I thought you were better than that.
Just a fact Malcolm. I am genuinely surprised she does not have a date yet. She really should have. I hope the planning here is not going to let us down.
Poe’s law applies here: I looked at that and assumed it was a parody.
Nope, he's a proper Trump supporter.
He was one of the people that really got the Pizzagate lies spread. He's also a fan of the white replacement theory.
Then there was this.
The alt-right doesn't really understand the concept of protesting. First, they spent a lot of money at Starbucks...to protest Starbucks. Then, they boycotted Hamilton (because hey, let's boycott the things that are ultra expensive, right?). And now, they're dumping Rogue One (which hits theaters later this month) with the hashtag #DumpStarWars, because of (oh, hey, shocker) fake news.
Twitter user Jack Posobiec, who's allegedly the "special projects director" for a group called Citizens for Trump, tweeted claiming that the writers of Rogue One rewrote and reshot the film to "add in Anti Trump [sic] scenes calling him a racist."
"I started [the hashtag] this morning with a Periscope in response to the writers of Rogue One calling Trump a Nazi," Posobiec told Esquire Thursday evening, adding that he was previously a "big time" Star Wars fan and was "really excited" to see Rogue One.
Of course, a Disney representative told TheWrap that this claim is entirely untrue, but that didn't stop Posobiec from starting a Star Wars boycott with a tweetstorm:
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
Let me guess, ‘right minds’ will be those who want the nasty Natz to shut up and go away? Of course many of those right minds were Pom Pom girls for the 4 or 5 years that the UK has endured since the EU referendum.
Still, good to see the Unionist offer taking shape.
Nice to see you are so on the ball this morning Divvie.
Especially “joyous and civic”.
If Holyrood does withhold its consent motion does that have any practical implication or is it just fuel for the grievance machine?
In a democracy it would mean something , in the UK dictatorship it will be symbolic only.
The government should compile a list of anti vaxxers from those who refuse the vaccines and exile them to the Outer Hebrides.
Gruinard is so close to the mainland I don’t think it even counts as Inner Hebrides, but you can have that in perpetuity as long as you pay for electric fencing and watchtowers.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
So you must hate general elections held every four/five years.
I bet you really hated Boris Johnson calling an election two years after the last one?
No. There is a difference between ejecting a representative body and a referendum on constitutional arrangements
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.
If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.
Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
There is also the utilitarian argument that those willing to pay to be vaccinated from said excess supply are most likely to be doing so in order to stimulate economic activity in some way. Most obviously, it would clearly be better for our travel industry if everyone contemplating an early summer trip this year were able to be vaccinated prior.
Starting with pilots and onboard staff?
Indeed - there will surely be companies of all types eager to resume 'normal' activity that would be willing to pay for their staff to get some of Foxy's spare vaccinations
Although truthfully, after medical staff the group I would give the highest priority for vaccination to are those employed as cleaning staff - especially but not exclusively in hospitals, supermarkets and schools. They’re probably more at risk than anyone else by the nature of their job and yet they’re really important.
Surely Robert Jenrick should at the top of the list. Mr Jenrick appears to be entitled to a particular brand of preferential treatment without recourse. He must be supremely important.
My mother in law is 85 on 2nd January, frail and with a number of conditions. She has not yet got a date for her vaccination. In Scotland the first priority has been those in and working in Care homes, not the elderly as such. This is presumably a consequence of the guilt related to how badly they were neglected in the first wave when infected patients were dumped on them by hospitals clearing wards but it is indicative that there will be differences across the UK.
For me the absolute priority is speed. I don't want people faffing about trying to work out who's turn it is. Vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible and pray that this stops the recipients being transmitters.
The Pfizer vaccine requirements are such that vaccinating care homes is about the only easy option available to use them. You simply can't split it into small enough doses to vaccinate old people living at home.
The Oxford vaccine doesn't have the storage issues so will be far easier to administer to individuals.
There was someone (who ought to have known, IIRC) on the box this morning say that you could have the Pfizer vaccine out of storage for not two or three hours, which makes using a couple of vials in a care home a rational use of operatives time and vaccine life. The Oxford-AZN is much more 'user-friendly'; putting a dozen in a cool-box and sending a district nurse round the 'stuck at homes' is a much more practical possibility.
No one seriously ill out of 20000 sounds like it works extremely well even if its technical effectiveness is lower.
I get a handful of colds each year, I don't mind if one of those happens to be covid if my chances of getting seriously ill from it is less than 1 in 20000.
AZ as approved today has a 62% efficacy.
How many got serious ill? Why does it matter what strain a cold is if the chances of getting seriously ill are less than 1 in 20000?
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
Even banning all future elections?
It would be the act of a democratically-elected government so yes.
No one seriously ill out of 20000 sounds like it works extremely well even if its technical effectiveness is lower.
I get a handful of colds each year, I don't mind if one of those happens to be covid if my chances of getting seriously ill from it is less than 1 in 20000.
AZ as approved today has a 62% efficacy.
The point being no hospitalisation in the vaccine arm of the trial. As well as no deaths. So all those graphs I post collapse to nothing, if this is uses. Zeros all the way.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.
If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.
Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
Pharmacies, dentists, why on Earth not mobilise everyone?. If the jabs are there, get it down quickly and simply. Alphabetical, by postcode, NI/NHS number.
Zinedine Zidane is not happy with your proposal.
On the flip side, he has never been accidentally phoned by someone keeping their mobile in their pocket.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
That's how a free market works.
I do not think this is anything like comparable to a commercial venture
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
I do hope that the people of Scotland do take notice of facts.
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
If you knew anything about Scotland you would have noticed that they have indeed noticed the facts do not match the lies they were fed.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
I do hope that the people of Scotland do take notice of facts.
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
Does the fact that Scots were told that if they wanted to stay in the EU they had to vote No, and then it turned out that the opposite was true, not bother you at all? If you were Scottish do you think you'd be OK with it?
There is a difference between being wrong when you make a statement based on the known facts and “lying”.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
That's how a free market works.
Big G is a late convert to Communism, but a sinner who repents is always welcome 🤣
Whenever someone from Independent SAGE comes on TV I find myself getting quite annoyed. I'm all in favour of tighter restrictions but whenever that group or someone from that group gives their take, it's always the same message of "lockdown everyone and everything now until 80/90% of the population is vaccinated" with badly concealed glee that the numbers are going in the wrong direction thinking it proves their point. Sir David King basically saying that on BBC News in the last few mins.
We should definitely lock everything down for 6-8 weeks in my view, but demanding this stay in place until we've 80% of the population vaccinated shows they have no respect or understanding for those struggling from the economic effects of this.
Its the fucking geeks getting their day in the sun. Hows your pension eh lads, doing ok is it? Tell that to some poor sod working in a clothes shop.
And you are right, every time we hear good news some arsehole comes up and says no. I heard, for once, a fairly sane head on the radio yesterday. Yet another member of some advisory group to the government, they pointed two blindingly obvious things as the presenter stated as 100% pure unassailable fact that government policy had gone wrong and something must be done.
1. Measures take time to impact and we have to see how the increase in restrictions gets on. 2. the primary aim of the vaccine rollout is to get those most vulnerable to the worst effects protected, ie keep them out of hospital.
The idea that with some continuing measures in place for people to abide by, that by vaccinating say the most 10 million vulnerable+frontline NHS staff+care workers (and carers), we still do not reduce the load on acute services seems absurd but there you have it. This is the flu situation with rockets on, we seek to protect those most vulnerable+vital, everyone else can wait or indeed just stick it out if necessary. Certainly I've seen plans in this part of the world for mass vaccination ready to go with the use of lesiure centres and other large hall venues as sites to get the jab so things are most definitely in play.
Then it occurred to me that scientists and experts are just like the rest of the population, some of them like a good doom monger with an added tap of the nose and flash of the PhD credentials. They like to say its a disaster, they like to cause drama. The idea that they all somehow act like a 25 year veteran BA pilot is just not true.
What we need to do is sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of the sorts of people we are dealing with when they are quoted.
All the reports are the EU won't approve the Oxford vaccine anytime soon. I wonder if European countries will go to a single dose strategy?
Astra Zeneca haven’t submitted an application yet - and when they do I suspect the EMA will take its time.
I’m surprised at that. I suspect the EU is being misleading.
Typically you don’t officially “submit an application” until *all the data* is available. The regulators don’t start looking until that point because they want to look at the totality of the data.
The MHRA allowed what is called a “rolling submission” - you file each chapter (tox, preclinical, CMC, clinical etc) as it is available.
I don’t know whether the EMA allowed a rolling submission for Jenner/AZ but I would be surprised if they didn’t.
My guess is that the EMA is engaging in some pre-emptive blame shifting relying on journalists taking them at face value and Astra not wanting get into a public fight with its regulator
Thanks - do you think EMA capacity has been affected by their bolt from London?
We've been through this. Charles is wrong. Anyone in the EU could apply for the rolling process but only the UK did.
The vaccine expertise for the EU previously resided in the UK with the MHRA. All such related matters were referred to the UK for this reason.
Since Brexit and the separation the MHRA's application for a rolling review only applied to the UK (it would previously have applied to the whole of the EU). Any other EU regulatory body could have applied for one but as the expertise was not there (I'm guessing?) none did.
So if anything Brexit meant that the EU received its green light later than the UK. Which I suppose for the Brexiters is a huge win.
Good news about the AZN vaccine, although I'm still feeling a bit angsty about the decision to basically extend the time between the two doses.
I hope that's a decision genuinely justified by/based on all the trial data, and isn't just a reaction to the threat posed by the new more transmissible variant.
Why? If the first dose does give some protection the priority must be to give the first dose to as many people as possible. As it happens there is some evidence that the increased gap may even be beneficial but even if it wasn't I don't understand your logic.
What of those in care homes? They still haven`t received the first jab and if they are now to wait 12 weeks to the second then does the time to when they can see visitors again gets lengthened?
In Scotland they have been given priority for their first jab. I would have thought most people in care homes would be pretty high up the list anyway on age. Whether they are then safe to have visitors will depend on the question of whether they can still transmit, even if they don't become ill.
No one seriously ill out of 20000 sounds like it works extremely well even if its technical effectiveness is lower.
I get a handful of colds each year, I don't mind if one of those happens to be covid if my chances of getting seriously ill from it is less than 1 in 20000.
AZ as approved today has a 62% efficacy.
Though 100% for admissions/deaths (though few over 55s)
So likely to protect individuals better than providing herd immunity, though will provide some.
The government should compile a list of anti vaxxers from those who refuse the vaccines and exile them to the Outer Hebrides.
Gruinard is so close to the mainland I don’t think it even counts as Inner Hebrides, but you can have that in perpetuity as long as you pay for electric fencing and watchtowers.
That's a bit unfair on the owners of Gruinard (I went to school with one of them).
It's been cleaned up - a nature reserve mainly, IIRC - now you want to cover it in shite?
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
No, not least because a private AZN jab would cost about the same as a meal out.
If NHS capacity cannot cope with demand, then why restrict delivery rather than open up to other agents. I am only suggesting opening up to private providers when supply exceeds NHS capacity.
Remember that we are dealing with an exhausted NHS at full stretch already.
I do accept that and outside agencies involvement is most likely essential but not administering it to the wealthy so they can jump the queue
I agree with Foxy. But with the rider that those who want to "jump the queue" are forced to pay a massive vaccine tax to the Exchequer that desperately needs the money for the benefit of us all.
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
That's how a free market works.
I do not think this is anything like comparable to a commercial venture
The shareholders of Pfizer, AZN, and Moderna for example might take a different view.
I fear the government are going to oversell again and talk about Easter...when in reality, still going to be at least 6 months to getthe majority of people to have both jabs.
Spring takes us into the second half of June, not sure that is what people are hearing when the govt use the word though.
There are many definitions of the seasons, but having spring start on Midsummer's Day is one of the stranger ones, and people would be generally right to regard spring as having ended much earlier in the year.
Have they said by the start of spring? I have only heard by spring? Which presumably, from their point of view, includes the last day of spring within "by spring".
Hancock used “in spring” rather than “by spring” today which tends to support your contention
Yes, though I expect people will get confused. I imagine he didn't want to say 'by the summer' in case they can cover sooner, whilst still providing a range.
So it took Tony Blair on the radio and a whole week’s hard thinking before this government arrives at what was obvious to everyone else.
It’s good that they waited to review the data.
Medical protocols shouldn’t be determined based on “what’s obvious”
Yes. Its possible that the government or independent agencies etc might have been able to move faster on some things, but they will never be able nor do we really want them to be moving as fast as commentators can.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Nope.
Scotland had two choices in 2014
a) you are part of the U.K. demos b) you are a distinct demos
You chose (a)
Therefore when there was a vote of the U.K. demos in 2016 you voted as part of it.
The only scenario where your claim would be true is if you had voted for independence in 2014 abut it hadn’t yet been completed by the time Brexit happened and the EU turned out to be a rigid and impracticable organisation
Thanks, it’s these types of lofty pronouncements from afar that have been sadly lacking in the constitutional debate. Let’s hope the people of Scotland sit up and take notice.
I do hope that the people of Scotland do take notice of facts.
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
Does the fact that Scots were told that if they wanted to stay in the EU they had to vote No, and then it turned out that the opposite was true, not bother you at all? If you were Scottish do you think you'd be OK with it?
There is a difference between being wrong when you make a statement based on the known facts and “lying”.
Either it was a lie at the time, or circumstances have changed significantly since 2014. Either way a second referendum is justified. You didn't answer my question. How do you think you would feel about all this if you were Scottish? Do you think you'd be OK with it?
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
You really are a pompous over privileged arsehole of epic proportions.
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
My point is and was that you may not have chosen it but the country did. Democratically. Now of course you may want every decision the government makes to be run by you but I see some problems with that.
"The Country" chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
So the analogy stands. You, by getting married, gave up some of your personal sovereignty and ability to go whoring but were wholly sovereign nevertheless as you could at any time go whoring and could indeed leave the marriage.
That you choose to stay in your marriage (which I hope will last for many years) is therefore a compromise of your personal sovereignty.
The country did not democratically.
The government did breaching its manifesto promise - there is nothing democratic about that. The government lost its next election, that is democratic.
So under the principle of "no Parliament can bind its successor" then the rogue Parliament of Brown signing Lisbon in breach of his manifesto commitment not to do so without a referendum ought to have been able to be reversed by the next Parliament. But its wasn't possible.
That I choose to stay in my marriage is not a compromise of my personal sovereignty, it is my choice. If I choose to end it I can do so. The UK could not reverse what Brown did signing Lisbon without leaving the EU altogether - so thankfully we have now taken that course. I am sure you must applaud that since it was the only option left post-Brown right?
Anything the government does, including not following its manifesto, is a democratic act as the people will have voted in a government which they should have realised could not follow its manifesto.
I doubt most people expect the government to do the opposite of its manifesto. But democracy doesn't end the day of the election or once Parliament passes a law.
The principle you keep ignoring that is a key element of Parliamentary Democracy is that no Parliament can bind it's successors. If a government does something we dislike not a part of its manifesto (like Lisbon) then we can elect a different government to reverse that.
The EU made laws irreversible. That is why it is antidemocratic.
Given Brown passed Lisbon in breach of the manifesto and against the public's wishes how do you think the public can or should get it democratically reversed?
Anything a democratically-elected government does is democratic.
This was literally the argument @Philip_Thompson used himself to justify everything the current administration has done. The guy is a hypocrite of the highest order.
No. My argument is that democracy does not end and anything this administration does can and should be able to be reversed at the next election. No hypocrisy.
If the next government wishes to reverse this deal they can issue a termination notice.
So what is hypocritical about that?
If this government did something that went in complete contravention of the manifesto, seeking to make it irreversible for the next one, then that would be a different matter.
Poe’s law applies here: I looked at that and assumed it was a parody.
Nope, he's a proper Trump supporter.
He was one of the people that really got the Pizzagate lies spread. He's also a fan of the white replacement theory.
Then there was this.
The alt-right doesn't really understand the concept of protesting. First, they spent a lot of money at Starbucks...to protest Starbucks. Then, they boycotted Hamilton (because hey, let's boycott the things that are ultra expensive, right?). And now, they're dumping Rogue One (which hits theaters later this month) with the hashtag #DumpStarWars, because of (oh, hey, shocker) fake news.
Twitter user Jack Posobiec, who's allegedly the "special projects director" for a group called Citizens for Trump, tweeted claiming that the writers of Rogue One rewrote and reshot the film to "add in Anti Trump [sic] scenes calling him a racist."
"I started [the hashtag] this morning with a Periscope in response to the writers of Rogue One calling Trump a Nazi," Posobiec told Esquire Thursday evening, adding that he was previously a "big time" Star Wars fan and was "really excited" to see Rogue One.
Of course, a Disney representative told TheWrap that this claim is entirely untrue, but that didn't stop Posobiec from starting a Star Wars boycott with a tweetstorm:
It is essential that the vaccines are delivered in the groupings advised and nobody jumps the queue no matter how wealthy or famous who may think they can buy their way to the front
I would disagree. As soon as supply exceeds the ability of the NHS to deliver it systematically, release it to the open market so as many further agents can deliver it. The coverage would then expand more quickly.
I respect your professional knowledge but if that means the wealthy and famous are able to jump the queue then that is wrong
That's how a free market works.
Big G is a late convert to Communism, but a sinner who repents is always welcome 🤣
I would not go that far but this crisis is not for the wealthy to buy a place in front of the very vulnerable
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
There is a counterargument of course. Who in their right minds would want Scotland to endure another 4 or 5 years like the UK has since the EU referendum? I appreciate the "right minds" part excludes a significant part of the population but even so....
Let me guess, ‘right minds’ will be those who want the nasty Natz to shut up and go away? Of course many of those right minds were Pom Pom girls for the 4 or 5 years that the UK has endured since the EU referendum.
Still, good to see the Unionist offer taking shape.
Nice to see you are so on the ball this morning Divvie.
Especially “joyous and civic”.
If Holyrood does withhold its consent motion does that have any practical implication or is it just fuel for the grievance machine?
In a democracy it would mean something
So you support Scotland leaving the EU with no deal.
Good news about the AZN vaccine, although I'm still feeling a bit angsty about the decision to basically extend the time between the two doses.
I hope that's a decision genuinely justified by/based on all the trial data, and isn't just a reaction to the threat posed by the new more transmissible variant.
Why? If the first dose does give some protection the priority must be to give the first dose to as many people as possible. As it happens there is some evidence that the increased gap may even be beneficial but even if it wasn't I don't understand your logic.
What of those in care homes? They still haven`t received the first jab and if they are now to wait 12 weeks to the second then does the time to when they can see visitors again gets lengthened?
In Scotland they have been given priority for their first jab. I would have thought most people in care homes would be pretty high up the list anyway on age. Whether they are then safe to have visitors will depend on the question of whether they can still transmit, even if they don't become ill.
Those in care homes as supposed to be at the top of the list. But is isn`t happening due to temperature requirements of the Pfizer vaccine.
I wonder whether the government should be switching policy here: administer the one-dose fridge-temperature vaccine to care home residents instead?
It is indeed. And to answer your point last night, when you said that you chose your wife whereas the UK didn't choose the Lisbon treaty; absolutely wrong. The country, in the shape of the democratically elected government, did indeed choose the Lisbon Treaty.
No I never said the UK didn't choose the Lisbon Treaty. What I said was that I didn't choose it.
The UK in the form of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair reneging on their last election manifesto chose it - and what was the result afterwards? The UK rejected that party and elected Cameron and has never looked back leading to Brexit.
Do you see the point yet? Democracy should rest with the public ultimately and no Parliament can or should bind its successors. Blair and Brown reneging on their manifesto by signing Lisbon was a disreputable way to act. The public by voting 4 General Election and 1 Referendum in a row have reversed that.
Brown signing Lisbon having promised at the election not to is not the same as me choosing my own wife. It is more comparable to one "elder" choosing everyone's partner, compelling them to get married, then saying there is no way to get divorced without leaving the tribe. Now people have chosen to leave the tribe.
....another for the crap Brexit analogy file.
It wasn't my analogy, it was Nigelb and TOPPING that came up with it.
TOPPING was trying to argue that my being married is incompatible with "personal sovereignty". His analogy not mine. Difference is though I chose my wife, she chose me - and if either of us decide we don't want to remain married we can get divorced.
So yes the marriage analogy was crap. But I was arguing against it.
The strategy of arguing against an analogy by building on it is rarely a fruitful one.
» show previous quotes So Scotland should leave the EU with no deal?
Scotland should have remained in the EU and will be back in as soon as possible after independence. Unfortunately being a colony we were forced out by our Colonial Masters against our will.
Brexit makes the case for independence unanswerable. 55% of Scots wanted to stay in the UK, but 62% wanted to stay in the EU. We were dragged out by the English. It has switched me from Unionist to Nationalist.
Not really 'unanswerable'. It depends how much importance you attach to membership of each? The turnout for the EU referendum was much lower than for the 2014 one.
Most Scots didn't expect the English to vote to leave, so there wasn't the urgency to vote in 2016. After all, we were told in 2014 that if we voted No then we would stay in the EU. Who could have guessed that that was a flat out lie?
It wasn’t a lie.
At that time Brexit hadn’t been voted for (and I don’t think the referendum had even been announced).
No statement about the future looks at every conceivable scenario
OK. So circumstances have changed in ways people couldn't even have conceived since 2014, is that what you're saying? I take it you agree that Scotland should have another referendum then in light of this.
Yes, circumstances changed.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
Democracy doesn't have a 20 year timespan, it has a 5 year timespan.
Parliament lasts 5 years not 20 years.
2021 is the next scheduled Holyrood elections. That is not "voting again and again" it is a regularly scheduled election.
If the Scots elect a government committed to another referendum that is not "voting again and again" it is democracy in action.
Comments
There is evidence of this from schools, though becomes less marked in adult life, apart from citation indexes for academia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1518671.stm
I hope that's a decision genuinely justified by/based on all the trial data, and isn't just a reaction to the threat posed by the new more transmissible variant.
If Holyrood does withhold its consent motion does that have any practical implication or is it just fuel for the grievance machine?
https://twitter.com/davejorgenson/status/1341588513754664970
I know it’s inconvenient for your political objectives but I can’t help that.
Asking for a lock down until vaccination reaches x% means that a lock down of 8 weeks looks as good as the 2 weeks the other side started with.
https://youtu.be/fn3KWM1kuAw
Lisbon - amending the Treaty of Rome - does some of the same things but is not the same thing. There was no United States of Europe nor a single treaty to rule them all. Neither Labour nor the Tories had a pledge to hold a referendum about any treaty of any description. So bleating on about Lisbon being a treaty breach is very, well, you...
What I am much clearer about is that this is the last thing Scotland needs (and it would be multiple times more difficult) right now. Last time around we did significant damage to our tax base and financial services industry even although we voted to remain. But I am a democrat and will accept the decision of the majority in May.
And I gave no problem with Scotland having another vote, say in 20 years
Voting again and again until you get the answer you want is undemocratic
I bet you really hated Boris Johnson calling an election two years after the last one?
The Oxford vaccine doesn't have the storage issues so will be far easier to administer to individuals.
Sky saying it is a pointless division as it will receive a thumping majority for the time motion
*more famous than you obviously
https://en.memesrandom.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ian-mckeller.jpg
The lack of EU approval seems to be because AstraZeneca hasn't submitted an application -
“At the moment, AstraZeneca has only provided data on their clinical trials to the European Medicines Agency,” he said.
“We need additional data on the quality of their vaccine.”
In addition, AstraZeneca has yet to submit a formal application, which is another necessary condition for the vaccine to be recommended.
This made it "improbable" that an approval could be granted next month, Mr Wathion said."
Ideally we would have better studies, but this is far from an ideal time. I would worry more about the thin evidence base for the over 55s.
https://twitter.com/ScotTories/status/1201476725286342657
At the least, it was highly disingenuous at the time of the Indy Ref for the same people who were pushing and intending to try and get the UK to leave the EU, to be using EU membership as an argument on their side.
The UK is our country not Lincolnshire nor the EU. If you want the country to be the EU then make an argument for a single European country - and ensure the EU is democratically run. If you want Lincolnshire independence then make that your country and make a case for that,
The reason the nation state is more important is that it is democratically elected and debated. We have a government because of a General Election that debated the issues before us and one side won it.
Ursula von der Leyen is good at her job unlike her predecessor but she didn't get it due to an EU election. She wasn't even a candidate at the election.
(I’m not sure it is 70% held by the top 4 chains FWIW - from memory there are about 12-13k pharmacies, of which Boots had about 3k, Lloyds 1.5k, Rowlands and Co-op (I forget what they are called these days) about 500-600 each and then Day Lewis at 400.
There are a bunch a smaller chains but almost half are single site proprietor managed pharmacies)
Followed by the extension of T4 announcement
He was one of the people that really got the Pizzagate lies spread. He's also a fan of the white replacement theory.
Then there was this.
The alt-right doesn't really understand the concept of protesting. First, they spent a lot of money at Starbucks...to protest Starbucks. Then, they boycotted Hamilton (because hey, let's boycott the things that are ultra expensive, right?). And now, they're dumping Rogue One (which hits theaters later this month) with the hashtag #DumpStarWars, because of (oh, hey, shocker) fake news.
Twitter user Jack Posobiec, who's allegedly the "special projects director" for a group called Citizens for Trump, tweeted claiming that the writers of Rogue One rewrote and reshot the film to "add in Anti Trump [sic] scenes calling him a racist."
"I started [the hashtag] this morning with a Periscope in response to the writers of Rogue One calling Trump a Nazi," Posobiec told Esquire Thursday evening, adding that he was previously a "big time" Star Wars fan and was "really excited" to see Rogue One.
Of course, a Disney representative told TheWrap that this claim is entirely untrue, but that didn't stop Posobiec from starting a Star Wars boycott with a tweetstorm:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a51399/now-trump-supporters-are-boycotting-star-wars/
I do not think 2 hours makes any difference at all
The Oxford-AZN is much more 'user-friendly'; putting a dozen in a cool-box and sending a district nurse round the 'stuck at homes' is a much more practical possibility.
62% is wholly misleading.
And you are right, every time we hear good news some arsehole comes up and says no. I heard, for once, a fairly sane head on the radio yesterday. Yet another member of some advisory group to the government, they pointed two blindingly obvious things as the presenter stated as 100% pure unassailable fact that government policy had gone wrong and something must be done.
1. Measures take time to impact and we have to see how the increase in restrictions gets on.
2. the primary aim of the vaccine rollout is to get those most vulnerable to the worst effects protected, ie keep them out of hospital.
The idea that with some continuing measures in place for people to abide by, that by vaccinating say the most 10 million vulnerable+frontline NHS staff+care workers (and carers), we still do not reduce the load on acute services seems absurd but there you have it. This is the flu situation with rockets on, we seek to protect those most vulnerable+vital, everyone else can wait or indeed just stick it out if necessary. Certainly I've seen plans in this part of the world for mass vaccination ready to go with the use of lesiure centres and other large hall venues as sites to get the jab so things are most definitely in play.
Then it occurred to me that scientists and experts are just like the rest of the population, some of them like a good doom monger with an added tap of the nose and flash of the PhD credentials. They like to say its a disaster, they like to cause drama. The idea that they all somehow act like a 25 year veteran BA pilot is just not true.
What we need to do is sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of the sorts of people we are dealing with when they are quoted.
🧐
The vaccine expertise for the EU previously resided in the UK with the MHRA. All such related matters were referred to the UK for this reason.
Since Brexit and the separation the MHRA's application for a rolling review only applied to the UK (it would previously have applied to the whole of the EU). Any other EU regulatory body could have applied for one but as the expertise was not there (I'm guessing?) none did.
So if anything Brexit meant that the EU received its green light later than the UK. Which I suppose for the Brexiters is a huge win.
So likely to protect individuals better than providing herd immunity, though will provide some.
It's been cleaned up - a nature reserve mainly, IIRC - now you want to cover it in shite?
You didn't answer my question. How do you think you would feel about all this if you were Scottish? Do you think you'd be OK with it?
If the next government wishes to reverse this deal they can issue a termination notice.
So what is hypocritical about that?
If this government did something that went in complete contravention of the manifesto, seeking to make it irreversible for the next one, then that would be a different matter.
Reversibility matters.
Fair enough.
I wonder whether the government should be switching policy here: administer the one-dose fridge-temperature vaccine to care home residents instead?
Parliament lasts 5 years not 20 years.
2021 is the next scheduled Holyrood elections. That is not "voting again and again" it is a regularly scheduled election.
If the Scots elect a government committed to another referendum that is not "voting again and again" it is democracy in action.