» 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.
Are you the same David who thinks that actually leaving the EU with significantly reduced financial services access will be water off a duck's back?
Yes. Edinburgh is in an entirely different position than London. It is a satellite and services based centre servicing London. London is arguably the most important international financial centre in the world and utterly dominant in the European time zone. Edinburgh is far more dependent upon London than London is the EU.
But I have also been critical of this deal because it does not include financial services as Mrs May has just pointed out. Hopefully this will be a short term problem.
I think people underestimate just how international London is as a financial sector. We (a Japanese bank) just wrote paper for a huge Brazilian outfit and did it in the UK branch rather than in Japan. Thats a foreign company writing paper for another foreign company and doing it in London. That business isn't going anywhere with or without a deal on financial services. The money is here, the expertise is here, the rule of law is here and now there's no ECJ to rule "for the greater good" and allow the EU to subordinate bond holders as they did in 2010. The most damaging thing to have happened to the city was the internal markets bill, that undermined centuries of confidence in the UK government to respect rule of law.
Not being tied to EU regulations on finance makes a lot of sense in an industry with no physical borders and huge innovation.
I sense she is above all else a Conservative Party loyalist, so will be pleased enough, but I'd be surprised if there were not some less charitable sentiment in there too.
This bloke who brought me down and replaced me, saying my Deal was rubbish, goes and agrees the sort of noddy Deal I could have done in 10 minutes if I'd have dropped my "protect the economy and the constitutional integrity of the UK" red line, and gets cheered to the rafters for it.
Is it cos I am not a 'born to rule' public school chancer unencumbered by a sense of duty and public service?
Will Theresa May be kicked upstairs in the New Year Honours? It would suit Boris and explain the gong-blocking Blair stories this week.
I don't see why she would want a Peerage right now. She stood for election only a year ago despite it being an opportunity to slink off, she might well enjoy being an MP more than a Lord.
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.
The vaccines have gained *emergency authorisation* which is different. Safety trials continue. Due to FoI some info is freely available in the USA that I don't think is issued to the public here or in the EU.
Pfizer and Moderna aren't vaccines, nor are coronavirus vaccines necessarily as useful in a risk-benefit comparison as influenza vaccines. Effective treatment protocols have been pioneered by Dr Pierre Kory and many others but some rich people don't want us to know about them.
PB is a great betting site. But too many people since Feb 2020 have seemed unable to think for themselves.
Enjoy your (mostly unnecessary) jabs But if in doubt be sceptical and ask 'Cui bono'. 4-5 PB contributors clearly do.
He’s the fan of ivermectin right?
I know the avermectin class very well. They are still the go to class for heartworm and ticks in my view. But Kory has only complied a dossier not conducted trials.
I sense she is above all else a Conservative Party loyalist, so will be pleased enough, but I'd be surprised if there were not some less charitable sentiment in there too.
This bloke who brought me down and replaced me, saying my Deal was rubbish, goes and agrees the sort of noddy Deal I could have done in 10 minutes if I'd have dropped my "protect the economy and the constitutional integrity of the UK" red line, and gets cheered to the rafters for it.
Is it cos I am not a 'born to rule' public school chancer unencumbered by a sense of duty and public service?
Prediction is so much easier after the speech has been made....
I sense she is above all else a Conservative Party loyalist, so will be pleased enough, but I'd be surprised if there were not some less charitable sentiment in there too.
This bloke who brought me down and replaced me, saying my Deal was rubbish, goes and agrees the sort of noddy Deal I could have done in 10 minutes if I'd have dropped my "protect the economy and the constitutional integrity of the UK" red line, and gets cheered to the rafters for it.
Is it cos I am not a 'born to rule' public school chancer unencumbered by a sense of duty and public service?
If true, is it necessarily an advantage? I`m sure pleased that my provenance didn`t mean that I`m `born to rule`.
Phew, bullet dodged.
Confidence, even unearned confidence, can be a huge advantage. Look at Trump.
Careful...Mr Chinese Egg-head was very uncomfortable giving a figure and said erh, well, we think about 70%. It is clear they don't really know with a level of confidence they are comfortable being absolute about.
It was very clear that the decision is being driven by the emergency situation.
Was suprised Liz Truss was not made Chancellor after Boris became leader given that she had supported him in 2016 never mind 2019.Can see her being made the Next Education or Local Government Minister assuming Jenrick and Williamson will be out although the worst Cabinet Minister in the Cameron/May govts Grayling had an inexplicably long run
15 years ago, most of us thought it was the Tory party that would be broken by the issue of the European Union.
Now, it looks as though most of the damage has actually been sustained by the Labour Party.
Compared to the Tories, the various Nationalists & the LibDems, Labour still look broken to pieces on the issue.
I have come round to thinking SKS has made a bad mistake -- there is absolutely no point in whipping this vote & forcing recalcitrant Remainer Labour MPs to vote for it. He should had left it a free vote for his MPs.
SKS has just stored up bitterness for 2021 by forcing some MPs to vote against the dictates of their conscience.
For the Red Wallers, much more important is what the next Labour manifesto says about Europe. Thsi bill is not important. All SKS has done is contribute to a false feeling of unity so Boris can have his big triumph.
Listening to Starmer in parliament today, ruthlessly criticising many aspects of the trade deal, makes one wonder why he is voting for it. It is also a bit rich coming from someone who said ANY deal is better than no deal.
He`s trying to butter both sides of his bread. He may fail on both fronts.
I thought it was good and the kind of grown up politics we have been missing for the last 5 years. The choice is this deal or no deal, it is a no brainer.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
Naughty HYUFD, ignoring your own pronouncements on qualifying poll numbers as sub samples.
Wasn't HYUFD saying yesterday that Ian Murray would definitely vote against the Deal? Or is my memory wrong?
He did, and then scuttled off when it was pointed out to him. Much of a one with his cowardice over defending his glorious Union at the ballot box.
I'm actually slightly surprised about Murray, tbf to HYUFD - but maybe he's desperate to gather Tory votes.
For those of us hazy on our Geography of Edinburgh, is Murray's seat essentially dominated by the University?
Not really, though there are some uni out buildings scattered about I think. Mainly distinguished by Morningside, famed for high house prices, Waitrose and artisan cheese.
She’s trying to rescue her reputation now, attacking Bozo’s deal for having nothing for services.
She has a point. There are clearly points where her deal was better. But she still couldn't sell cold beer in the Sahara on a hot summer's day and that is one of the reasons we are in this mess. A little humility would not go amiss.
Mrs May's deal - assuming the substance of the "PD" came to fruition after the "WA" - was better from the point of view of almost everyone except hard leavers. For them, however, this Johnson deal is better. They are a minority in the country but have prevailed due to their disproportionate influence in the governing party.
15 years ago, most of us thought it was the Tory party that would be broken by the issue of the European Union.
Now, it looks as though most of the damage has actually been sustained by the Labour Party.
Compared to the Tories, the various Nationalists & the LibDems, Labour still look broken to pieces on the issue.
I have come round to thinking SKS has made a bad mistake -- there is absolutely no point in whipping this vote & forcing recalcitrant Remainer Labour MPs to vote for it. He should had left it a free vote for his MPs.
SKS has just stored up bitterness for 2021 by forcing some MPs to vote against the dictates of their conscience.
For the Red Wallers, much more important is what the next Labour manifesto says about Europe. Thsi bill is not important. All SKS has done is contribute to a false feeling of unity so Boris can have his big triumph.
1. The damage to the Tory Party has already been done. It has shed an entire wing of the party and declared a fatwa its its previous long established positions of being pro business and pro free trade 2. Keith sounded impressive saying "they hope the vote of others will rescue them". But everyone knows the reality that the deal will pass. This is about consent, and despite the long list of problems he listed he is putting his name to it 3. I live in the red wall, and barring 3 years in that London always have done. Lets boil Brexit for them down to two issues - foreigners and prosperity. Foreigners aren't going away and prosperity isn't coming in. And yet Labour voted for 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
If circumstances have changed (and leaving the EU is a massive change for Scotland) then logic dictates you allow another referendum now. Where is the logic in waiting 20 years?
Can you demonstrate the logic? It doesn’t follow.
Constitutional decisions are for an extended period of time. It helps no one to have repeated votes and continuous agitation. (20 is arbitrary but 15-30 would be reasonable. 40 feels too long and 10 too short)
Jefferson in his famous letter ("the earth is for the living") to Madison calculated a political generation at 19 years. So you were close
Was suprised Liz Truss was not made Chancellor after Boris became leader given that she had supported him in 2016 never mind 2019.Can see her being made the Next Education or Local Government Minister assuming Jenrick and Williamson will be out although the worst Cabinet Minister in the Cameron/May govts Grayling had an inexplicably long run
Would Education let alone Local Government be a promotion from International Trade at this current time?
Seems like International Trade is a massive department for Truss and the UK at the moment. For the next few years as we look to get our first post-EU brand new trade deals (and no doubt the government will want to have some implemented before 2024) its going to remain a very important department.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
Naughty HYUFD, ignoring your own pronouncements on qualifying poll numbers as sub samples.
Wasn't HYUFD saying yesterday that Ian Murray would definitely vote against the Deal? Or is my memory wrong?
He did, and then scuttled off when it was pointed out to him. Much of a one with his cowardice over defending his glorious Union at the ballot box.
I'm actually slightly surprised about Murray, tbf to HYUFD - but maybe he's desperate to gather Tory votes.
For those of us hazy on our Geography of Edinburgh, is Murray's seat essentially dominated by the University?
Actually quite a mix - studentland in the inner area, Morningside and a lot of owner occupation, and some council housing. Not sure I would say 'dominated' without checking more, esp as students often vote at parental home. But Mr M is very much an operator when it comes to angling for the Tory vote.
» 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?
I love how the 38% of Scottish voters who actually backed Brexit have been airbrushed from 'being Scottish'. I imagine they feel pretty good about it.
She’s trying to rescue her reputation now, attacking Bozo’s deal for having nothing for services.
She has a point. There are clearly points where her deal was better. But she still couldn't sell cold beer in the Sahara on a hot summer's day and that is one of the reasons we are in this mess. A little humility would not go amiss.
Mrs May's deal - assuming the substance of the "PD" came to fruition after the "WA" - was better from the point of view of almost everyone except hard leavers. For them, however, this Johnson deal is better. They are a minority in the country but have prevailed due to their disproportionate influence in the governing party.
Fair from your perspective.
We've also prevailed thanks to the Remainers marching through lobbies with hard leavers. Its worth bearing in mind that 'die hard' Leavers rejecting May's deal in MV3 (which I was one of the only ones to reject from a leave perspective on this site) were represented by fewer than 30 "Spartans".
That less than 30 Spartans in the last Parliament were able to bring this about is absolutely remarkable. I was told repeatedly by fellow Leavers that my opposition to May's deal was misguided and I'd never see anything better - but I'd rather have Remained than May's deal - as it happens though I have everything I wanted now and the Spartans triumphed. Not due to their fewer than 30 votes alone.
15 years ago, most of us thought it was the Tory party that would be broken by the issue of the European Union.
Now, it looks as though most of the damage has actually been sustained by the Labour Party.
Compared to the Tories, the various Nationalists & the LibDems, Labour still look broken to pieces on the issue.
I have come round to thinking SKS has made a bad mistake -- there is absolutely no point in whipping this vote & forcing recalcitrant Remainer Labour MPs to vote for it. He should had left it a free vote for his MPs.
SKS has just stored up bitterness for 2021 by forcing some MPs to vote against the dictates of their conscience.
For the Red Wallers, much more important is what the next Labour manifesto says about Europe. Thsi bill is not important. All SKS has done is contribute to a false feeling of unity so Boris can have his big triumph.
Listening to Starmer in parliament today, ruthlessly criticising many aspects of the trade deal, makes one wonder why he is voting for it. It is also a bit rich coming from someone who said ANY deal is better than no deal.
He`s trying to butter both sides of his bread. He may fail on both fronts.
I thought it was good and the kind of grown up politics we have been missing for the last 5 years. The choice is this deal or no deal, it is a no brainer.
With an 80 seat Majority and the support of the ERG, there is no choice. The bill is passing whatever.
SKS will vote for the bill, OK.
But, what is the justification for SKS whipping the vote? This is going to stick in the craw of some of his Remainer MPs & some party supporters and voters, as well.
I understand SKS badly needs to draw a line under Europe for the Labour Party to patch itself together. I just don't see forcing his front bench & Party to vote with him as healing the wounds.
The healing could have begun after the vote, maybe at the next Labour Conference, when SKS announces we accept the result and now will work to ensure our relations with the EU are harmonious.
It also -- as was pointed out on pb.com by many people days ago -- leaves a big, big problem in Scotland. (I am one who thinks it is nearly impossible for Labour to get back into power without recovering at least some of its former Scottish seats.)
Yep Thomas Moore came over as angry and a bit conspiracist. I'm not entirely sure what point he was making as various datasets are being released today and the full assessment shortly.
» 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?
Fuck me, you've done it now, Chuck's going to launch into his 'My family, the Scotch years' spiel.
I do have Scottish roots, of course, but don’t consider myself Scottish as it was a while back (my great-great grandparents)
» 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?
I love how the 38% of Scottish voters who actually backed Brexit have been airbrushed from 'being Scottish'. I imagine they feel pretty good about it.
I thought it was a British vote for British people?
It isn't a great look to be saying we approve this, but we are very reluctant to give any hard figures and there is this data we won't share with you. But needs must. It clearly works ok (and the big thing that is hardly getting a mention is zero hospitalizations after 3 weeks) and we can't wait.
» 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
If circumstances have changed (and leaving the EU is a massive change for Scotland) then logic dictates you allow another referendum now. Where is the logic in waiting 20 years?
Can you demonstrate the logic? It doesn’t follow.
Constitutional decisions are for an extended period of time. It helps no one to have repeated votes and continuous agitation. (20 is arbitrary but 15-30 would be reasonable. 40 feels too long and 10 too short)
Can you demonstrate the logic of pulling those numbers from your backside ?
Particularly in a case where a major constitutional change against the wishes of Scotland has subsequently and substantially changed the argument.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
The big take away from the press conference, you are getting what you are getting. There is not going to be any delineation of most vulnerable getting Pfizer, the rest getting AZN. It is going to be based on where they can get vaccines to and how quickly.
Its a big call. I can only imagine the press reaction if some 80 year old gets the AZN one and then dies....given how piss poor the media are at understanding stats and probabilities.
Was suprised Liz Truss was not made Chancellor after Boris became leader given that she had supported him in 2016 never mind 2019.Can see her being made the Next Education or Local Government Minister assuming Jenrick and Williamson will be out although the worst Cabinet Minister in the Cameron/May govts Grayling had an inexplicably long run
Would Education let alone Local Government be a promotion from International Trade at this current time?
Seems like International Trade is a massive department for Truss and the UK at the moment. For the next few years as we look to get our first post-EU brand new trade deals (and no doubt the government will want to have some implemented before 2024) its going to remain a very important department.
She’s doing a fantastic job right where she is. Only the keys to No.11 would be a promotion worth taking.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
Naughty HYUFD, ignoring your own pronouncements on qualifying poll numbers as sub samples.
Wasn't HYUFD saying yesterday that Ian Murray would definitely vote against the Deal? Or is my memory wrong?
He did, and then scuttled off when it was pointed out to him. Much of a one with his cowardice over defending his glorious Union at the ballot box.
I'm actually slightly surprised about Murray, tbf to HYUFD - but maybe he's desperate to gather Tory votes.
For those of us hazy on our Geography of Edinburgh, is Murray's seat essentially dominated by the University?
Actually quite a mix - studentland in the inner area, Morningside and a lot of owner occupation, and some council housing. Not sure I would say 'dominated' without checking more, esp as students often vote at parental home. But Mr M is very much an operator when it comes to angling for the Tory vote.
I stayed in Morningside with a work colleague for several months in 1962 when I left Berwick on Tweed and started work in Edinburgh. Very handy for the Braids and it's excellent golf course
15 years ago, most of us thought it was the Tory party that would be broken by the issue of the European Union.
Now, it looks as though most of the damage has actually been sustained by the Labour Party.
Compared to the Tories, the various Nationalists & the LibDems, Labour still look broken to pieces on the issue.
I have come round to thinking SKS has made a bad mistake -- there is absolutely no point in whipping this vote & forcing recalcitrant Remainer Labour MPs to vote for it. He should had left it a free vote for his MPs.
SKS has just stored up bitterness for 2021 by forcing some MPs to vote against the dictates of their conscience.
For the Red Wallers, much more important is what the next Labour manifesto says about Europe. Thsi bill is not important. All SKS has done is contribute to a false feeling of unity so Boris can have his big triumph.
Hmmm... What he has done for the likes of me is that he has shown that he learned from his serious mistakes in the 2017-19 Parliament and recognised that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition should act in the national interest. That makes me much more willing to listen to him on other matters. If might even lead me to vote for him in due course.
Was suprised Liz Truss was not made Chancellor after Boris became leader given that she had supported him in 2016 never mind 2019.Can see her being made the Next Education or Local Government Minister assuming Jenrick and Williamson will be out although the worst Cabinet Minister in the Cameron/May govts Grayling had an inexplicably long run
Would Education let alone Local Government be a promotion from International Trade at this current time?
Seems like International Trade is a massive department for Truss and the UK at the moment. For the next few years as we look to get our first post-EU brand new trade deals (and no doubt the government will want to have some implemented before 2024) its going to remain a very important department.
She’s doing a fantastic job right where she is. Only the keys to No.11 would be a promotion worth taking.
Was suprised Liz Truss was not made Chancellor after Boris became leader given that she had supported him in 2016 never mind 2019.Can see her being made the Next Education or Local Government Minister assuming Jenrick and Williamson will be out although the worst Cabinet Minister in the Cameron/May govts Grayling had an inexplicably long run
Would Education let alone Local Government be a promotion from International Trade at this current time?
Seems like International Trade is a massive department for Truss and the UK at the moment. For the next few years as we look to get our first post-EU brand new trade deals (and no doubt the government will want to have some implemented before 2024) its going to remain a very important department.
She’s doing a fantastic job right where she is. Only the keys to No.11 would be a promotion worth taking.
Her trade talks experience would be useful for Foreign Secretary.
If anyone thinks there could be a vacancy there....
Was suprised Liz Truss was not made Chancellor after Boris became leader given that she had supported him in 2016 never mind 2019.Can see her being made the Next Education or Local Government Minister assuming Jenrick and Williamson will be out although the worst Cabinet Minister in the Cameron/May govts Grayling had an inexplicably long run
Would Education let alone Local Government be a promotion from International Trade at this current time?
Seems like International Trade is a massive department for Truss and the UK at the moment. For the next few years as we look to get our first post-EU brand new trade deals (and no doubt the government will want to have some implemented before 2024) its going to remain a very important department.
She’s doing a fantastic job right where she is. Only the keys to No.11 would be a promotion worth taking.
100% agreed.
Even FCDO wouldn't be a real world promotion from where she is now.
Truss has done more for the UK on an international stage this year than Dominic Raab - and is more appreciated by the party members according to surveys for it too.
» 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?
Fuck me, you've done it now, Chuck's going to launch into his 'My family, the Scotch years' spiel.
I thought he comes from a family of benevolent Irish landlords? I may have misplaced by copy of Burke's Peerage so can't be wholly sure.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
Naughty HYUFD, ignoring your own pronouncements on qualifying poll numbers as sub samples.
Wasn't HYUFD saying yesterday that Ian Murray would definitely vote against the Deal? Or is my memory wrong?
He did, and then scuttled off when it was pointed out to him. Much of a one with his cowardice over defending his glorious Union at the ballot box.
I'm actually slightly surprised about Murray, tbf to HYUFD - but maybe he's desperate to gather Tory votes.
For those of us hazy on our Geography of Edinburgh, is Murray's seat essentially dominated by the University?
Actually quite a mix - studentland in the inner area, Morningside and a lot of owner occupation, and some council housing. Not sure I would say 'dominated' without checking more, esp as students often vote at parental home. But Mr M is very much an operator when it comes to angling for the Tory vote.
I've read before that EdS has the highest number of voters born outside of Scotland.
The big take away from the press conference, you are getting what you are getting. There is not going to be any delineation of most vulnerable getting Pfizer, the rest getting AZN. It is going to be based on where they can get vaccines to and how quickly.
Its a big call. I can only imagine the press reaction if some 80 year old gets the AZN one and then dies....given how piss poor the media are at understanding stats and probabilities.
Actually the big takeaway is that people like you should be kept well away from decision making on vaccines.
It's not that you don't have a point but it's esoteric. This is about pragmatism and it may well be that the mixed AZN trials have proved a blinder.
The best decisions to advance human history have always involved chance and daring. Think penicillin.
She’s trying to rescue her reputation now, attacking Bozo’s deal for having nothing for services.
She has a point. There are clearly points where her deal was better. But she still couldn't sell cold beer in the Sahara on a hot summer's day and that is one of the reasons we are in this mess. A little humility would not go amiss.
Mrs May's deal - assuming the substance of the "PD" came to fruition after the "WA" - was better from the point of view of almost everyone except hard leavers. For them, however, this Johnson deal is better. They are a minority in the country but have prevailed due to their disproportionate influence in the governing party.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
The big take away from the press conference, you are getting what you are getting. There is not going to be any delineation of most vulnerable getting Pfizer, the rest getting AZN. It is going to be based on where they can get vaccines to and how quickly.
Its a big call. I can only imagine the press reaction if some 80 year old gets the AZN one and then dies....given how piss poor the media are at understanding stats and probabilities.
Big problem coming here imho. Given there is, shall we say, a little controversy over how actual cause of death is being handled in this pandemic, I can see an issue looming.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
The big take away from the press conference, you are getting what you are getting. There is not going to be any delineation of most vulnerable getting Pfizer, the rest getting AZN. It is going to be based on where they can get vaccines to and how quickly.
Its a big call. I can only imagine the press reaction if some 80 year old gets the AZN one and then dies....given how piss poor the media are at understanding stats and probabilities.
Actually the big takeaway is that people like you should be kept well away from decision making on vaccines.
It's not that you don't have a point but it's esoteric. This is about pragmatism and it may well be that the mixed AZN trials have proved a blinder.
The best decisions to advance human history have always involved chance and daring. Think penicillin.
Not sure what you mean. I am not saying they are wrong, IMO I think it is the right decision. There is an pressing emergency. An ideal world, Oxford / AZN would have been asked to go and run another trial (well they have by the US authorities), but we are in a particular situation where speed is utter most importance. It isn't wrong to say they balls up their trial.
I am just saying it is a big call. You could feel it from the press conference that they were very careful with their language and more than a little uncomfortable, as I am sure they know they have had to make a big decision.
It will be interesting to see what other European countries do, given they have even more limited supply of vaccines coming.
It isn't a great look to be saying we approve this, but we are very reluctant to give any hard figures and there is this data we won't share with you. But needs must. It clearly works ok (and the big thing that is hardly getting a mention is zero hospitalizations after 3 weeks) and we can't wait.
Putting it simply, given a choice between this and the Pfizer vaccine today, the latter would be a no brainier.
But given the choice between getting the AZN vaccine now, and the Pfizer vaccine in maybe six months’ time, the former is the far better choice, both on an individual and population level. I’d very happily get it today if I could.
They can’t give you hard data because they simply haven’t accumulated enough on the delayed booster shot. We and the rest of the world will have a great deal of data in a few months time, so we’re doing the planet a massive favour, too. Especially as the AZN is one if the very, very few which will be available on a mass basis for less developed nations.
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.
We differ in the source of Parliament’s authority (the government’s authority only comes from the royal prerogative plus its ability to control parliament)
My view is that parliament is the elected representative body of the demos. They have authority over most day to day decisions during their term. But to “change the rules of the game” - leaving the EU, Scottish independence or the length of their own mandate for example - you need to refer back to the people for a specific mandate
Why?
Because a representative doesn’t have the right to permanently alienate a delegated power from the originator
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
And Europe 'as a modern history thingy' didn't happen until 1973 and/or 1993.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
Naughty HYUFD, ignoring your own pronouncements on qualifying poll numbers as sub samples.
Wasn't HYUFD saying yesterday that Ian Murray would definitely vote against the Deal? Or is my memory wrong?
He did, and then scuttled off when it was pointed out to him. Much of a one with his cowardice over defending his glorious Union at the ballot box.
I'm actually slightly surprised about Murray, tbf to HYUFD - but maybe he's desperate to gather Tory votes.
For those of us hazy on our Geography of Edinburgh, is Murray's seat essentially dominated by the University?
Actually quite a mix - studentland in the inner area, Morningside and a lot of owner occupation, and some council housing. Not sure I would say 'dominated' without checking more, esp as students often vote at parental home. But Mr M is very much an operator when it comes to angling for the Tory vote.
I've read before that EdS has the highest number of voters born outside of Scotland.
It's possible, and not just for the students. A lot of university academics and other professionals live there, and if they vote for what they are familiar with and used to voting for at home it will help Mr Murray.
Was suprised Liz Truss was not made Chancellor after Boris became leader given that she had supported him in 2016 never mind 2019.Can see her being made the Next Education or Local Government Minister assuming Jenrick and Williamson will be out although the worst Cabinet Minister in the Cameron/May govts Grayling had an inexplicably long run
Would Education let alone Local Government be a promotion from International Trade at this current time?
Seems like International Trade is a massive department for Truss and the UK at the moment. For the next few years as we look to get our first post-EU brand new trade deals (and no doubt the government will want to have some implemented before 2024) its going to remain a very important department.
She’s doing a fantastic job right where she is. Only the keys to No.11 would be a promotion worth taking.
She'll run out of things to replicate soon.
And that's the key point. She isn't signing new trade deals. She is signing continuations of the existing trade deal. The fabulously hard part will come when she tries to negotiate new deals with better terms for the UK than those given to the EU. "What do you mean bigger deals get better terms" will shout angry Tories as they are told no.
It isn't a great look to be saying we approve this, but we are very reluctant to give any hard figures and there is this data we won't share with you. But needs must. It clearly works ok (and the big thing that is hardly getting a mention is zero hospitalizations after 3 weeks) and we can't wait.
Putting it simply, given a choice between this and the Pfizer vaccine today, the latter would be a no brainier.
But given the choice between getting the AZN vaccine now, and the Pfizer vaccine in maybe six months’ time, the former is the far better choice, both on an individual and population level. I’d very happily get it today if I could.
They can’t give you hard data because they simply haven’t accumulated enough on the delayed booster shot. We and the rest of the world will have a great deal of data in a few months time, so we’re doing the planet a massive favour, too. Especially as the AZN is one if the very, very few which will be available on a mass basis for less developed nations.
AZ really completely fucked up the trial didn't they. As in completey and utterly fucked it. Useless company. They've also completely fucked up the manufacturing as well aiui. Honestly, I'd rather have had a competent company in charge even if they refused the cost price pledge, at least we'd have had a proper trial and they wouldn't have completely shit the bed on manufacturing. The Pfizer trial was absolutely brilliant, well thought out and no fuck ups.
If we didn't have this mega emergency the MHRA should have refused and sent AZ back to conduct a new trial with 20k participants on the HD/FD version. Honestly, I think they still should and they should put it up for approval again in a few months.
Let us not forget the University of Oxford's role in all of this.
Were they responsible for trial design? Or is that the manufacturer's responsibility?
I thought it was two researchers who didn’t trust the product was within spec and therefore incorrectly diluted it?
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
And Europe 'as a modern history thingy' didn't happen until 1973 and/or 1993.
But the constituent countres and universities were there before. Lots of Scots went to the Netherlands for trade and study, for instance. Religious links with the Calvinists. Trade with Sweden and the Baltic and so on.
This is about pragmatism and it may well be that the mixed AZN trials have proved a blinder.
It definitely is about pragmatism, but that is the one thing this briefing *cannot* say. Everything has to be positioned as if it would have been the same without that pragmatic need.
Was suprised Liz Truss was not made Chancellor after Boris became leader given that she had supported him in 2016 never mind 2019.Can see her being made the Next Education or Local Government Minister assuming Jenrick and Williamson will be out although the worst Cabinet Minister in the Cameron/May govts Grayling had an inexplicably long run
Would Education let alone Local Government be a promotion from International Trade at this current time?
Seems like International Trade is a massive department for Truss and the UK at the moment. For the next few years as we look to get our first post-EU brand new trade deals (and no doubt the government will want to have some implemented before 2024) its going to remain a very important department.
She’s doing a fantastic job right where she is. Only the keys to No.11 would be a promotion worth taking.
She'll run out of things to replicate soon.
And that's the key point. She isn't signing new trade deals. She is signing continuations of the existing trade deal. The fabulously hard part will come when she tries to negotiate new deals with better terms for the UK than those given to the EU. "What do you mean bigger deals get better terms" will shout angry Tories as they are told no.
But bigger deals do not get better terms. That was never true.
She is already underway with talks started or scheduled with a number of key countries.
The big take away from the press conference, you are getting what you are getting. There is not going to be any delineation of most vulnerable getting Pfizer, the rest getting AZN. It is going to be based on where they can get vaccines to and how quickly.
Its a big call. I can only imagine the press reaction if some 80 year old gets the AZN one and then dies....given how piss poor the media are at understanding stats and probabilities.
Actually the big takeaway is that people like you should be kept well away from decision making on vaccines.
It's not that you don't have a point but it's esoteric. This is about pragmatism and it may well be that the mixed AZN trials have proved a blinder.
The best decisions to advance human history have always involved chance and daring. Think penicillin.
I am just saying it is a big call.
It is but the two most important takeaways are 1. Is it safe? and 2. is it efficacious?
» 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.
Are you the same David who thinks that actually leaving the EU with significantly reduced financial services access will be water off a duck's back?
Yes. Edinburgh is in an entirely different position than London. It is a satellite and services based centre servicing London. London is arguably the most important international financial centre in the world and utterly dominant in the European time zone. Edinburgh is far more dependent upon London than London is the EU.
But I have also been critical of this deal because it does not include financial services as Mrs May has just pointed out. Hopefully this will be a short term problem.
I think people underestimate just how international London is as a financial sector. We (a Japanese bank) just wrote paper for a huge Brazilian outfit and did it in the UK branch rather than in Japan. Thats a foreign company writing paper for another foreign company and doing it in London. That business isn't going anywhere with or without a deal on financial services. The money is here, the expertise is here, the rule of law is here and now there's no ECJ to rule "for the greater good" and allow the EU to subordinate bond holders as they did in 2010. The most damaging thing to have happened to the city was the internal markets bill, that undermined centuries of confidence in the UK government to respect rule of law.
Not being tied to EU regulations on finance makes a lot of sense in an industry with no physical borders and huge innovation.
It is pretty small beer but it is frightening to think what a mess of regulation the ECB might make without London assistance. I still remember with some amusement the booklet with little pictures in it that Mark Carney thought would help them grasp what they still needed to do.
I agree that the Internal Markets Bill was a mistake and said so at the time.
15 years ago, most of us thought it was the Tory party that would be broken by the issue of the European Union.
Now, it looks as though most of the damage has actually been sustained by the Labour Party.
Compared to the Tories, the various Nationalists & the LibDems, Labour still look broken to pieces on the issue.
I have come round to thinking SKS has made a bad mistake -- there is absolutely no point in whipping this vote & forcing recalcitrant Remainer Labour MPs to vote for it. He should had left it a free vote for his MPs.
SKS has just stored up bitterness for 2021 by forcing some MPs to vote against the dictates of their conscience.
For the Red Wallers, much more important is what the next Labour manifesto says about Europe. Thsi bill is not important. All SKS has done is contribute to a false feeling of unity so Boris can have his big triumph.
Hmmm... What he has done for the likes of me is that he has shown that he learned from his serious mistakes in the 2017-19 Parliament and recognised that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition should act in the national interest. That makes me much more willing to listen to him on other matters. If might even lead me to vote for him in due course.
Even if it is completely cynical, he is repeatedly demonstrating he has political skills, which is a good start.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
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.
We differ in the source of Parliament’s authority (the government’s authority only comes from the royal prerogative plus its ability to control parliament)
My view is that parliament is the elected representative body of the demos. They have authority over most day to day decisions during their term. But to “change the rules of the game” - leaving the EU, Scottish independence or the length of their own mandate for example - you need to refer back to the people for a specific mandate
Why?
Because a representative doesn’t have the right to permanently alienate a delegated power from the originator
But I don't understand how you have decided which things they can do and which they cannot, it seems completely arbitrary and something people will disagree about all the time.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
And Europe 'as a modern history thingy' didn't happen until 1973 and/or 1993.
But the constituent countres and universities were there before. Lots of Scots went to the Netherlands for trade and study, for instance. Religious links with the Calvinists. Trade with Sweden and the Baltic and so on.
Which is true for Britain too. Can't say one without the other.
If you want to deny Britain any history before 1603/1707 then it is no more legitimate to define Scotland's political union with European nations at any date than 1973/1993
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
England was European before it was British too. Britishness is a recent invention.
You don't want to go down that route, all national identities are abitrary inventions if you go down that path. Scotland and England's (and the UK's in its various evolving incarnations) go back further than a great many in the world today, yet people in other places won't like being told theirs is an invention.
The big take away from the press conference, you are getting what you are getting. There is not going to be any delineation of most vulnerable getting Pfizer, the rest getting AZN. It is going to be based on where they can get vaccines to and how quickly.
Its a big call. I can only imagine the press reaction if some 80 year old gets the AZN one and then dies....given how piss poor the media are at understanding stats and probabilities.
Actually the big takeaway is that people like you should be kept well away from decision making on vaccines.
It's not that you don't have a point but it's esoteric. This is about pragmatism and it may well be that the mixed AZN trials have proved a blinder.
The best decisions to advance human history have always involved chance and daring. Think penicillin.
I am just saying it is a big call.
It is but the two most important takeaways are 1. Is it safe? and 2. is it efficacious?
AZN fulfils both
As I also said, I think the big thing that hasn't been shouted from the rooftops about AZN / Oxford vaccine is even if it inferior to Pfizer at stopping you getting COVID, nobody was hospitalized after 3 weeks, which I think all but the nutty of nutters would take. A chance of a week or two of a nasty flu, I think most people would take, compared to rolling the dice of no protection for the next 3-4-5 months.
It also has a higher overall death rate than the UK despite being almost untouched in the spring.
Doesn't this show that claims that a UK lockdown a few days earlier would have made a significant difference are bollox ?
It shows that nearly all of Europe is facing a very very bad situation - unless they can get the vaccinations going quickly.
Indeed.
And the casually complacent attitude to vaccination that seems widespread in other European countries looks very dangerous.
Not to mention the high level of opposition among the general populations.
Just four in 10 people in France want to have a vaccination against Covid-19, a poll showed Tuesday, as concern also grows over the slow start to the country’s immunisation campaign.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
And Europe 'as a modern history thingy' didn't happen until 1973 and/or 1993.
But the constituent countres and universities were there before. Lots of Scots went to the Netherlands for trade and study, for instance. Religious links with the Calvinists. Trade with Sweden and the Baltic and so on.
Which is true for Britain too. Can't say one without the other.
If you want to deny Britain any history before 1603/1707 then it is no more legitimate to define Scotland's political union with European nations at any date than 1973/1993
Wasn't denying that - just that it's often forgotten that Scotland was strongly linked to Europe in ways that did not apply to England, indeed often inversely, as with the alliances with France. So Blackford was right in saying it was an European [state] - IIRC the concept of Great Britain as a united island = polity didn't arise till James VI and the union of the Crowns. Indeed, there was much hostility to it then and later from both sides.
It also has a higher overall death rate than the UK despite being almost untouched in the spring.
Doesn't this show that claims that a UK lockdown a few days earlier would have made a significant difference are bollox ?
It shows that nearly all of Europe is facing a very very bad situation - unless they can get the vaccinations going quickly.
Indeed.
And the casually complacent attitude to vaccination that seems widespread in other European countries looks very dangerous.
Not to mention the high level of opposition among the general populations.
Just four in 10 people in France want to have a vaccination against Covid-19, a poll showed Tuesday, as concern also grows over the slow start to the country’s immunisation campaign.
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
Naughty HYUFD, ignoring your own pronouncements on qualifying poll numbers as sub samples.
Wasn't HYUFD saying yesterday that Ian Murray would definitely vote against the Deal? Or is my memory wrong?
He did, and then scuttled off when it was pointed out to him. Much of a one with his cowardice over defending his glorious Union at the ballot box.
I'm actually slightly surprised about Murray, tbf to HYUFD - but maybe he's desperate to gather Tory votes.
For those of us hazy on our Geography of Edinburgh, is Murray's seat essentially dominated by the University?
Actually quite a mix - studentland in the inner area, Morningside and a lot of owner occupation, and some council housing. Not sure I would say 'dominated' without checking more, esp as students often vote at parental home. But Mr M is very much an operator when it comes to angling for the Tory vote.
I stayed in Morningside with a work colleague for several months in 1962 when I left Berwick on Tweed and started work in Edinburgh. Very handy for the Braids and it's excellent golf course
The golf course is probably the most difficult part of the Edinburgh Seven Hills Challenge route. How to navigate through the gorse bushes?
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Britain as an actual placey thingy, rather than a political construct, existed rather longer ago. Were the Iceni not British?
Europe as a modern history thingy was post WW2.
If he means we started working with the French against the English way before we joined up with the English, then he's got a really good point.
» 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?
My assessment wouldn’t change based on emotional criteria such as nationality.
There is a third option, which I hold: the situation may have changed but that doesn’t justify an immediate repeat referendum. Who judges what “significant” is?
I dunno, maybe the democratically elected government of Scotland?
He says any teachers over 50 will be eligible for a vaccine in the first phase, as will those under 50 with underlying health conditions.
Phase two will take into account "a range of other professions and key workers", he says, particularly if they can’t avoid travelling to work or they can’t avoid exposure at work.
He adds that the decision about those vaccinated in phase two “has not been made yet”. He says the rate of delivering the vaccine will determine when phase two is decided.
A very good Downing Street briefing on the vaccines. Neither too highfalutin nor too patronising.
BoZo isn't there...
He was the person who ordered 100 million doses without knowing if it would be effective and that action has likely saved thousands of lives and ended covid in the UK quicker than would otherwise have happened
» 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.
It’s not within the remit of the Scottish government to determine whether there is a referendum
The British could elect a government committed to requiring the French to implement the Treaty of Troyes but that wouldn’t make it a democratic requirement
But we are not going to agree on this so let’s not bother to rehearse the same old arguments
The French are a foreign nation. Are the Scots?
Your "again and again" or "generation" or "20 year" arguments are just fluff. Elections are routinely held every five years for a reason.
Either you respect Scottish democracy or you do not. It is a simple enough question. Do you respect Scottish democracy: yes or no?
Yes.
I also respect the current constitutional set up which explicitly reserves power on referendums to Westminster.
By all means campaign to get that changed. But until it is changed screaming “it’s undemocratic” doesn’t cut it.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Britain as an actual placey thingy, rather than a political construct, existed rather longer ago. Were the Iceni not British?
Scots by 47% to 17% also want MPs to pass the Deal so further evidence Sturgeon and Blackford have made a huge gaffe telling SNP MPs to oppose the Deal against the will of the people of Scotland!
Naughty HYUFD, ignoring your own pronouncements on qualifying poll numbers as sub samples.
Wasn't HYUFD saying yesterday that Ian Murray would definitely vote against the Deal? Or is my memory wrong?
He did, and then scuttled off when it was pointed out to him. Much of a one with his cowardice over defending his glorious Union at the ballot box.
I'm actually slightly surprised about Murray, tbf to HYUFD - but maybe he's desperate to gather Tory votes.
For those of us hazy on our Geography of Edinburgh, is Murray's seat essentially dominated by the University?
Not really, though there are some uni out buildings scattered about I think. Mainly distinguished by Morningside, famed for high house prices, Waitrose and artisan cheese.
In any other part of Britain it would be a solid Tory seat, possibly Lib Dem in an off year. It's indicative of how complete the loss of the working class to the SNP has been that that is their remnant.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Britain as an actual placey thingy, rather than a political construct, existed rather longer ago. Were the Iceni not British?
Europe as a modern history thingy was post WW2.
If he means we started working with the French against the English way before we joined up with English, then he's got a really good point.
I'm not quite sure that anyone but a Greek geographer would have thought of Britain as encompassing the entire island - or howe many of the locals would have had any notion of the extent of the island. Or if the Iceni were thinking of themselves as British as the Picts (say). Britannia may be a Roman notion, like the British talking of India (not sure about that, but did it not include varuous bits whose inclusion would surprise the locals?).
A very good Downing Street briefing on the vaccines. Neither too highfalutin nor too patronising.
BoZo isn't there...
He was the person who ordered 100 million doses without knowing if it would be effective and that action has likely saved thousands of lives and ended covid in the UK quicker than would otherwise have happened
He has his strengths and his weaknesses. I think the point that his strengths do not lie in presentational briefings remains.
Scotland was European before it was British, according to Mr Blackford.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
No - he is referring to the alliance networks, I imagine, also cultural ones (e.g. universities). Britain as a modern history thingy didn't happen till 1603 and/or 1707.
Britain as an actual placey thingy, rather than a political construct, existed rather longer ago. Were the Iceni not British?
It appears that both vaccines, even with one dose, minimise the risk of someone being severely ill/hospitalised with COVID.
So we need to get the vaccines out ASAP - by end Feb if possible - to all 65+ and those with severe medical conditions. 2m doses a week x 8 weeks = 16m people, that should cover it.
Then extend to 50+/those with more moderate health conditions by end March.
Second dose for the above Q2.
It takes 21 days to get protection so to protect the population we need proper lockdown including schools closed until 28 Feb, no messing around. Maybe move to a national 'Tier 2 with schools back' in March. Further relaxations Q2. Boris needs to announce it now!
Comments
Not being tied to EU regulations on finance makes a lot of sense in an industry with no physical borders and huge innovation.
I know the avermectin class very well. They are still the go to class for heartworm and ticks in my view. But Kory has only complied a dossier not conducted trials.
https://www.medscape.com/answers/2500114-197513/what-is-the-role-of-the-antiparasitic-drug-ivermectin-in-the-treatment-of-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19
It was very clear that the decision is being driven by the emergency situation.
Answer - when we have finished phase 1
https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19
It also has a higher overall death rate than the UK despite being almost untouched in the spring.
Doesn't this show that claims that a UK lockdown a few days earlier would have made a significant difference are bollox ?
2. Keith sounded impressive saying "they hope the vote of others will rescue them". But everyone knows the reality that the deal will pass. This is about consent, and despite the long list of problems he listed he is putting his name to it
3. I live in the red wall, and barring 3 years in that London always have done. Lets boil Brexit for them down to two issues - foreigners and prosperity. Foreigners aren't going away and prosperity isn't coming in. And yet Labour voted for it...
Seems like International Trade is a massive department for Truss and the UK at the moment. For the next few years as we look to get our first post-EU brand new trade deals (and no doubt the government will want to have some implemented before 2024) its going to remain a very important department.
Edit - Found it, Professor Wei Shen Lim.
https://twitter.com/ewanbirney/status/1344232620067008512?s=20
We've also prevailed thanks to the Remainers marching through lobbies with hard leavers. Its worth bearing in mind that 'die hard' Leavers rejecting May's deal in MV3 (which I was one of the only ones to reject from a leave perspective on this site) were represented by fewer than 30 "Spartans".
That less than 30 Spartans in the last Parliament were able to bring this about is absolutely remarkable. I was told repeatedly by fellow Leavers that my opposition to May's deal was misguided and I'd never see anything better - but I'd rather have Remained than May's deal - as it happens though I have everything I wanted now and the Spartans triumphed. Not due to their fewer than 30 votes alone.
SKS will vote for the bill, OK.
But, what is the justification for SKS whipping the vote? This is going to stick in the craw of some of his Remainer MPs & some party supporters and voters, as well.
I understand SKS badly needs to draw a line under Europe for the Labour Party to patch itself together. I just don't see forcing his front bench & Party to vote with him as healing the wounds.
The healing could have begun after the vote, maybe at the next Labour Conference, when SKS announces we accept the result and now will work to ensure our relations with the EU are harmonious.
It also -- as was pointed out on pb.com by many people days ago -- leaves a big, big problem in Scotland. (I am one who thinks it is nearly impossible for Labour to get back into power without recovering at least some of its former Scottish seats.)
Particularly in a case where a major constitutional change against the wishes of Scotland has subsequently and substantially changed the argument.
Its a big call. I can only imagine the press reaction if some 80 year old gets the AZN one and then dies....given how piss poor the media are at understanding stats and probabilities.
If anyone thinks there could be a vacancy there....
Even FCDO wouldn't be a real world promotion from where she is now.
Truss has done more for the UK on an international stage this year than Dominic Raab - and is more appreciated by the party members according to surveys for it too.
What does he mean? That the first Scots came from Ireland?
It's not that you don't have a point but it's esoteric. This is about pragmatism and it may well be that the mixed AZN trials have proved a blinder.
The best decisions to advance human history have always involved chance and daring. Think penicillin.
I am just saying it is a big call. You could feel it from the press conference that they were very careful with their language and more than a little uncomfortable, as I am sure they know they have had to make a big decision.
It will be interesting to see what other European countries do, given they have even more limited supply of vaccines coming.
But given the choice between getting the AZN vaccine now, and the Pfizer vaccine in maybe six months’ time, the former is the far better choice, both on an individual and population level. I’d very happily get it today if I could.
They can’t give you hard data because they simply haven’t accumulated enough on the delayed booster shot. We and the rest of the world will have a great deal of data in a few months time, so we’re doing the planet a massive favour, too. Especially as the AZN is one if the very, very few which will be available on a mass basis for less developed nations.
What did people think of Mrs America:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p08ggcmd/mrs-america
This episode of Firing Line is good on the issues, which look very dated now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP_87IAqItw
She is already underway with talks started or scheduled with a number of key countries.
David is better than Goliath.
AZN fulfils both
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1344240221051904002?s=20
I agree that the Internal Markets Bill was a mistake and said so at the time.
If you want to deny Britain any history before 1603/1707 then it is no more legitimate to define Scotland's political union with European nations at any date than 1973/1993
You get a like for 'sallies forth'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9098217/Lord-Alan-Sugar-reveals-sister-Shirley-88-died-Covid-19.html
And the casually complacent attitude to vaccination that seems widespread in other European countries looks very dangerous.
Not to mention the high level of opposition among the general populations.
Just four in 10 people in France want to have a vaccination against Covid-19, a poll showed Tuesday, as concern also grows over the slow start to the country’s immunisation campaign.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/dec/29/coronavirus-live-news-more-countries-alert-suspected-cases-new-uk-covid-variant?page=with:block-5feb6e998f08d0452b087484#block-5feb6e998f08d0452b087484
Europe as a modern history thingy was post WW2.
If he means we started working with the French against the English way before we joined up with the English, then he's got a really good point.
Phase two will take into account "a range of other professions and key workers", he says, particularly if they can’t avoid travelling to work or they can’t avoid exposure at work.
He adds that the decision about those vaccinated in phase two “has not been made yet”. He says the rate of delivering the vaccine will determine when phase two is decided.
----
If I am lucky I might get my by August.
I also respect the current constitutional set up which explicitly reserves power on referendums to Westminster.
By all means campaign to get that changed. But until it is changed screaming “it’s undemocratic” doesn’t cut it.
It appears that both vaccines, even with one dose, minimise the risk of someone being severely ill/hospitalised with COVID.
So we need to get the vaccines out ASAP - by end Feb if possible - to all 65+ and those with severe medical conditions. 2m doses a week x 8 weeks = 16m people, that should cover it.
Then extend to 50+/those with more moderate health conditions by end March.
Second dose for the above Q2.
It takes 21 days to get protection so to protect the population we need proper lockdown including schools closed until 28 Feb, no messing around. Maybe move to a national 'Tier 2 with schools back' in March. Further relaxations Q2. Boris needs to announce it now!