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?
Or perhaps because her vision of "protecting the economy" was precisely what was wrong?
She sought to protect the economy be de facto keeping the UK within the Single Market and Customs Union that we had voted to leave. The economy arguments were debated in the referendum and were defeated - her vision of "protecting the economy" was to Remain in the EU.
This deal IS better for Hard Leavers. You are right to be pleased with it. As for where Mrs May's would have gone, we don't know. The backstop steered to a close alignment model which favoured the economy over the de-pooling of sovereignty and also prevented a border between NI and GB. But it was no certainty this would have transpired. In any event she could not have got anything through that hung parliament. Her authority was shot. This is why the notion of Labour voting the WA through was not a goer.
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.)
Lets not pretend there is not a big problem in Scotland regardless of what he does on this vote or anything else. A significant Scottish turnaround for Labour will take 10-20 years if it ever happens.
» 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.
No.
Yes Charles. Yes.
No.
A referendum on the constitutional rules is not the same as an election of a representative body with a tone limited mandate
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.
» 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)
No that does not follow and never has followed.
Decisions are for one Parliament only. Always have been. No Parliament can bind its successor.
Where does an "extended period of time" come from? What constitutional settlement or principle determines that?
The principle is no revote until Westminster authorises it
I personally think that, every so often, the people should be given a chance to bless the constitutional set up. The EU referendum was long over due, for example.
The length of time is a question of practicality. It clearly makes no sense to have a vote every month. And 5 years would just lead to perpetual campaigning and instability. But there’s no particular magic to 20 years
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?
Kate Pickles from the Daily Mail asks how the 12-week gap between doses was reached. Sir Munir Pirmohamed says they looked at the trial data, noting that some people were given the second dose at four weeks and some at up to 26 weeks after the first.
» 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.
Powers on referendums are not explicitly reserved.
Am I right in thinking that one of the downsides with the Oxford vaccine is you can only have it once, because of the delivery mechanism means if you try and use the same mechanism again the body will fight it off?
Thus, if it doesn't work against Cockney Covid, unlike Pfizer vaccine, it can't quickly be tinkered with and we go around jabbing people again?
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.
Didn't the Romans first articulate a concept of Britishness, most of a millennia before Alfred declared himself King of all the English - followed not long after by Anglo-Saxon Kings claiming overlordship of all Britain?
Claiming that Britishness only starts with the Union of Crowns in 1603, or the Union of Parliaments in 1707, is a bit inconsistent with claiming Europeanness on the basis of a few Scottish soldiers fighting for the French in the Hundred Year's War, or a Scottish Monarch growing up in France.
And it makes sod all difference to whether people are willing to share governance with other people on this Island, or want to create another border, another division.
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.
David is better than Goliath.
David has a narrower range of interests to protect and is therefore less likely to have red lines that prevent agreement. I agree that trade deals for the UK alone should be easier for that reason even if they are less exciting for the other party than a mega deal with the EU.
Interesting detail in the slides is that MHRA have rejected the contra-intuitive half-dose approach, as "not borne out by full analysis". That will presumably be why there is no recommendation on preference for younger age groups, as the reserrvation that the half-dose amended trial didn't contain anyone 55+ doesn't apply to the main trial.
» 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.
It absolutely does cut it.
Scotland has elections. They should be respected.
If you want to say you don't respect Scottish elections then that will doom the union faster than anything else.
If the SNP wanted another referendum without another election in-between getting a mandate for that then that would be asking "again and again" but your notion of "20 years" has no grounding within our constitutional settlement.
No Parliament can bind its successors has been a clear principle of our Parliamentary Democracy for hundreds of years. This Parliament is not bound by a vote nearly a decade ago now when so much has changed inbetween, it either chooses to respect the Scottish electorates choice in 2021 or it does not - there is no hiding place.
Am I right in thinking that one of the downsides with the Oxford vaccine is you can only have it once, because of the delivery mechanism means if you try and use the same mechanism again the body will fight it off?
Thus, if it doesn't work against Cockney Covid, unlike Pfizer vaccine, it can't quickly be tinkered with and we go around jabbing people again?
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.
It's only an advantage if you want to rule. This is true.
But if you don't you can form a soft rock group and take up your place at high table that way.
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.
Yes, I'm not saying I personally wouldn't get it if I was given the opportunity. My issue is the way that AZ have conducted the trial. It looks like amateur hour from the outside. Changing the placebo, messing up the doses, oddly variable time between jabs. It all feels a bit amateur. What's more is that they created a rod for their own back with test first symptoms after which means something like the sniffles got recorded as having symptoms. Which wouldn't have been recorded in the other two trials.
This has been a bit farcical and now we find out that mass manufacturing isn't ready either. A 9-12 week delay for a new trial would be warranted IMO and the MHRA are going to look stupid when the FDA insists on one.
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?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
Perhaps someone should ask Munira Wilson if she would like to apologise to the government:
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
» 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.
No.
Yes Charles. Yes.
No.
A referendum on the constitutional rules is not the same as an election of a representative body with a tone limited mandate
It is absolutely the same. It is something that can be voted on by the Parliament and no Parliament is bound by any predecessor.
If the Lib Dems won the 2019 Referendum then Brexit would have been cancelled. Because Parliamentary elections trump any prior referendum or election and aren't bound to anything prior. Same principle applies for 2021. No Parliament is bound by its predecessors.
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.
It will be interesting to see on that one. I'm sure it's hers if she wants it. But does she?
And what about Nigel? Any plans for him, I wonder?
» 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?
Maybe the people of Scotland who installed into power a government who specifically listed the UK voting to leave the EU whilst Scotland voted to Remain as a reason to have a second IndyRef.
Like, this exact scenario was in the SNP manifesto.
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
Education is stereotyped as a woman's job so I hope Truss would turn it down if offered.
Truss could not have been Chancellor. We need to understand Boris's deeply cynical modus operandi. He needed Brexiteer cover for the EU deal and compromises he knew were necessary to sign one, and also cover for charges of racism. Truss can and probably will replace Raab; she could not have replaced Patel or Javid.
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.
Didn't the Romans first articulate a concept of Britishness, most of a millennia before Alfred declared himself King of all the English - followed not long after by Anglo-Saxon Kings claiming overlordship of all Britain?
Claiming that Britishness only starts with the Union of Crowns in 1603, or the Union of Parliaments in 1707, is a bit inconsistent with claiming Europeanness on the basis of a few Scottish soldiers fighting for the French in the Hundred Year's War, or a Scottish Monarch growing up in France.
And it makes sod all difference to whether people are willing to share governance with other people on this Island, or want to create another border, another division.
It's not an unreasonable challenge to make in response (I assume - wasn't listening) to Brexiter rhetoric about the primacy of Britishness over all else and their use of history. Which is actually consistent with your final point. Edit: weith which I agree.
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?
No, it's "centred" on Morningside, one of the more affluent neighbourhoods of Edinburgh (as denoted by the presence of an IJ Mellis cheesemonger).
Yum. Going there (or rather the one in the centre near the National Library) is one of the things I miss about the current covid episode.
Yes. It's high up on my list of things to do once this is over. Though I might order a cheese delivery before then, is not the same as being able to choose after tasting.
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.
Agreed that he`s good. Excellent in fact. It`s the relentless politicking that tires me.
He's a politician, Stocky. They don't tire of politics.
Perhaps someone should ask Munira Wilson if she would like to apologise to the government:
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
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?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
Obviously I mean to include just the best of Wales and Scotland in "British", to rob those countries of their claim to those things by basically giving them to England. I'll only use Welsh or Scottish to indicate scorn. FFS I'm English, what do you expect?
» 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)
No that does not follow and never has followed.
Decisions are for one Parliament only. Always have been. No Parliament can bind its successor.
Where does an "extended period of time" come from? What constitutional settlement or principle determines that?
The principle is no revote until Westminster authorises it
I personally think that, every so often, the people should be given a chance to bless the constitutional set up. The EU referendum was long over due, for example.
The length of time is a question of practicality. It clearly makes no sense to have a vote every month. And 5 years would just lead to perpetual campaigning and instability. But there’s no particular magic to 20 years
We do have perpetual campaigning and instability it is called democracy.
If the public don't want a particular style of campaigning and instability they will punish those parties advocating it - as happened in 2019 when the public punished the parties disrespecting the prior vote and wanted it "done" - but that is for the public to decide at elections.
Westminster can and should authorise it based upon the votes of Scottish voters at Scottish elections. If the Scottish voters deny the SNP (and fellow travellers) a majority then that is democracy. That the SNP want one will have been rejected by the electorate, que sera sera. Let the voters decide.
Am I right in thinking that one of the downsides with the Oxford vaccine is you can only have it once, because of the delivery mechanism means if you try and use the same mechanism again the body will fight it off?
Thus, if it doesn't work against Cockney Covid, unlike Pfizer vaccine, it can't quickly be tinkered with and we go around jabbing people again?
It's not as simple as that, there will be some vector immunity, however the vector can be quite easily edited to evade the existing immune response. The question is whether regulators would insist on completely new PI/II safety trials because it's a new vector, they probably wouldn't for mRNA vaccines.
Once again, not backing the Imperial mRNA vaccine is the issue no one seems to be addressing here, we had a potential homegrown candidate as good as Pfizer and Moderna with the same quick editable vector but we seem to have passed it up.
Am I right in thinking that one of the downsides with the Oxford vaccine is you can only have it once, because of the delivery mechanism means if you try and use the same mechanism again the body will fight it off?
Thus, if it doesn't work against Cockney Covid, unlike Pfizer vaccine, it can't quickly be tinkered with and we go around jabbing people again?
It's not as simple as that, there will be some vector immunity, however the vector can be quite easily edited to evade the existing immune response. The question is whether regulators would insist on completely new PI/II safety trials because it's a new vector, they probably wouldn't for mRNA vaccines.
Once again, not backing the Imperial mRNA vaccine is the issue no one seems to be addressing here, we had a potential homegrown candidate as good as Pfizer and Moderna with the same quick editable vector but we seem to have passed it up.
I thought we established that the Imperial one is thought to require £300-400 million worth of investment to get it to market?
Now, should the UK be funding investment in mRNA tech longer term, which has clear advantages in lots of areas, seems like a yes.
Am I right in thinking that one of the downsides with the Oxford vaccine is you can only have it once, because of the delivery mechanism means if you try and use the same mechanism again the body will fight it off?
Thus, if it doesn't work against Cockney Covid, unlike Pfizer vaccine, it can't quickly be tinkered with and we go around jabbing people again?
It's not as simple as that, there will be some vector immunity, however the vector can be quite easily edited to evade the existing immune response. The question is whether regulators would insist on completely new PI/II safety trials because it's a new vector, they probably wouldn't for mRNA vaccines.
Once again, not backing the Imperial mRNA vaccine is the issue no one seems to be addressing here, we had a potential homegrown candidate as good as Pfizer and Moderna with the same quick editable vector but we seem to have passed it up.
I thought we established that the Imperial one requires £300-400 million worth of investment to get it to market?
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....
So she DID say pretty much what I postulated then, did she? Reacted as a human being rather than an automaton. No longer the Maybot. Good for her.
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.
We will trade special access for French wine and Italian cheese for something if more relevance to the UK
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?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
Which is what most people call British. Until around the 5th century, there were no English
» 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.
The Internal Markets Bill will ultimately be seen for what it was - a device to show that Boris just might be slighty mad enough to No Deal - and of no wider application. And that device worked....at one point we had all the EU figureheads saying No Deal was now very, very much the likely outcome.
I can't thank of any other of the current crop of politicians that would have played that card. Bravo, Boris. He used it to great effect. Thin as Remainers might claim the Christmas Eve Agreement to be, I have no doubt that it could have been far, far worse for the UK.
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.
It would have been a solid Conservative seat, as it was itself up to 1987, but not now.
The likes of Birmingham Edgbaston, Leeds NW, Cardiff N, Sheffield Hallam, Bristol W haven't been solid Conservative seats since 1992.
Perhaps someone should ask Munira Wilson if she would like to apologise to the government:
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
It’s almost as if she wanted to join the EU scheme for ideological reasons.
Charitably, she may well have considered that it appeared to be a foolish decision at the time by not using every option open to the UK. However, time has shown that it was not a poor decision by the government and that should be acknowledged.
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?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
IANAE but my recollection is that Boudicca's husband was a ruler in Norfolk and that her rebellion was principally in East Anglia. As she was a queen of the Iceni I am struggling to see how that makes them Welsh, as opposed to Britons (many of whom may have spoken a language more related to Welsh than other current languages). Happy to have the error of my ways explained.
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.
Am I right in thinking that one of the downsides with the Oxford vaccine is you can only have it once, because of the delivery mechanism means if you try and use the same mechanism again the body will fight it off?
Thus, if it doesn't work against Cockney Covid, unlike Pfizer vaccine, it can't quickly be tinkered with and we go around jabbing people again?
It's not as simple as that, there will be some vector immunity, however the vector can be quite easily edited to evade the existing immune response. The question is whether regulators would insist on completely new PI/II safety trials because it's a new vector, they probably wouldn't for mRNA vaccines.
Once again, not backing the Imperial mRNA vaccine is the issue no one seems to be addressing here, we had a potential homegrown candidate as good as Pfizer and Moderna with the same quick editable vector but we seem to have passed it up.
I thought we established that the Imperial one requires £300-400 million worth of investment to get it to market?
Worth it.
Hopefully all this COVID stuff will drive "levelling up". Clearly UK is behind in this area and of course we have widely discussed how piss poor a lot of the modelling is (although I think a lot of that is down to the likes of DeepMind and Amazon in the UK hovering up all the best ML talent).
I fear all that will happen is the likes of Prof Pantsdown will get a load more money thrown at him.
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.
Didn't the Romans first articulate a concept of Britishness, most of a millennia before Alfred declared himself King of all the English - followed not long after by Anglo-Saxon Kings claiming overlordship of all Britain?
Athelstan claimed to be King of All Britain after defeating the Scots (plus the British of Strathclyde and the Irish Vikings) at Brunanburg.
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.
Basically what @Philip_Thompson was saying earlier - (I) can it be reversed; or (ii) is it an extension of parliament’s own rights and/or the basis for selecting parliament
If (I) is No it (ii) is Yes then effectively it is a “reserved power” for the electorate
The Internal Markets Bill will ultimately be seen for what it was - a device to show that Boris just might be slighty mad enough to No Deal - and of no wider application. And that device worked
Perhaps someone should ask Munira Wilson if she would like to apologise to the government:
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
It’s almost as if she wanted to join the EU scheme for ideological reasons.
Charitably, she may well have considered that it appeared to be a foolish decision at the time by not using every option open to the UK. However, time has shown that it was not a poor decision by the government and that should be acknowledged.
The reason that the government did not participate in the EU scheme was that it rapidly became clear that this was another layer on top of the process of actually getting the vaccine.
Much of what the EU does is coordination between essentially national capabilities. This is very useful if what you want is a common set of rules, that do not need to change rapidly, but everyone can agree on.
» 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.
The Internal Markets Bill will ultimately be seen for what it was - a device to show that Boris just might be slighty mad enough to No Deal - and of no wider application. And that device worked....at one point we had all the EU figureheads saying No Deal was now very, verymuch the likely outcome.
I can't thank of any other of the current crop of politicians that would have played that card. Bravo, Boris. He used it to great effect. Thin as Remainers might claim the Christmas Eve Agreement to be, I have no doubt that it could have been far, far worse for the UK.
Precisely. I said on the day it was published the rest of the world would see the IMB for what it was - a part of the UK's divorce from the EU and of no wider significance. Most countries around the world have got their independence at one stage or another and have undergone deeper disruptions than the IMB in that process.
That Japan signed their Trade Deal within a week of week the IMB being published, then Canada followed then dozens of other nations all before the IMB was withdrawn following further negotiations with the EU shows other nations were not concerned by it.
The IMB was a card that we had in the most important international negotiations we have had for about fifty years - no more, no less.
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?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
IANAE but my recollection is that Boudicca's husband was a ruler in Norfolk and that her rebellion was principally in East Anglia. As she was a queen of the Iceni I am struggling to see how that makes them Welsh, as opposed to Britons (many of whom may have spoken a language more related to Welsh than other current languages). Happy to have the error of my ways explained.
Welsh is a bit of an anachronism here. The entire population of Great Britain south of the Forth seems to have spoken a language ancestral to to modern Welsh, Cornish and Breton. And the Picts probably spoke something similar. Welsh is simply the Old English for "foreign" so should really not be used for the Roman period.
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.
» 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.
Powers on referendums are not explicitly reserved.
That’s the consensus interpretation - matters related to “the Union” are reserved. But it’s not been tested in court and the SNP hasn’t explicitly accepted it , although implicitly they did so in agreeing g to the 2012 referendum
Just to comment on the Pfizer Are Wonderful message which appeared downthread ...
They are and I have praised their technology with this vaccine. It is, indeed, marvellous.
However, and it's a very big however, developing a vaccine which requires the mRNA to be stored inside its cocoon at -70C is almost a disaster. Moderna have managed theirs at -20C which is obviously a lot better (within reach of standard freezer operating temp). And the cocoon also disintegrates rapidly outside of the -70C.
So this is going to be a case where the AstaZeneca vaccine has a FAR higher global success rate than Pfizer's even if it's the case that is is 'only' 80% effective compared to 95%.
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?
The Iceni were Welsh.
Are you sure you don't mean that the Welsh were Iceni (and other Celtic tribes).
What evidence is there that the Iceni originated in Wales?
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.
The politics of the Brexit impasse were fiendish due to the many agendas and their interplay. You can pick out any number of decisions by the various players that led to where we are. My big 2 are the Benn Act, which set up the Johnson landslide. And Corbyn, who was so hated by most of the Remainers in parliament that they could not stomach putting him in as PM to deliver Ref2 and Remain. At the end of the day they feared higher taxes and publicly owned utilities more than they wanted to stop Brexit.
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?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
It really isn't that difficult to understand. 'Britain' is a geographical expression. People that live on this island are British - they wouldn't be any less British if they left the political structure of the UK, and weren't any less British before the UK begun. Europe is exactly the same. In that sense, Scotland has always been both European and British.
I suspect that Blackford means that the early inhabitants of Scotland had stronger links with the continent and what is now the Republic of Ireland than they did with those dwelling in the rest of Britain. This may or may not be the case, although what relevance it has to the Brexit deal is anyone's guess.
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.
The message was specifically about the AZN vaccine and FrancisUrquart's mission on here to take a pop at the AZN-Oxford trials. He was referring to the way that this contrasts unfavourably with the Pfizer one which was the perfect model.
This 88 year old was not given AZN. He received the Pfizer one.
And what level of effectiveness can we have “every confidence in” ?
Having read the trial documents the efficacy is an odd one to understand and easily compare. In the AZ trial because of the weekly PCR test for participants, anyone who tested positive was then assessed for symptoms and even the most minor ones such as the sniffles or a solitary headache would count towards the total number of symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm. They created a rod for their own back because not a single person out there cares about getting the sniffles or a couple of headaches or other relatively minor symptoms. Symptoms that didn't get recorded in the other trials and didn't count towards their symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm.
I await the full trial data and classification of symptoms in the vaccine arm, that may actually help us to calculate efficacy of it against serious symptoms and mild symptoms rather than what may just be coincidental ones.
» 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)
No that does not follow and never has followed.
Decisions are for one Parliament only. Always have been. No Parliament can bind its successor.
Where does an "extended period of time" come from? What constitutional settlement or principle determines that?
The principle is no revote until Westminster authorises it
I personally think that, every so often, the people should be given a chance to bless the constitutional set up. The EU referendum was long over due, for example.
The length of time is a question of practicality. It clearly makes no sense to have a vote every month. And 5 years would just lead to perpetual campaigning and instability. But there’s no particular magic to 20 years
And there’s even less particular magic to your personal opinion.
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?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
It really isn't that difficult to understand. 'Britain' is a geographical expression. People that live on this island are British - they wouldn't be any less British if they left the political structure of the UK, and weren't any less British before the UK begun. Europe is exactly the same. In that sense, Scotland has always been both European and British.
I suspect that Blackford means that the early inhabitants of Scotland had stronger links with the continent and what is now the Republic of Ireland than they did with those dwelling in the rest of Britain. This may or may not be the case, although what relevance it has to the Brexit deal is anyone's guess.
Maybe he likes to say things to provoke pointless arguments on nerdy political websites that he can enjoy reading later
» 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.
It absolutely does cut it.
Scotland has elections. They should be respected.
If you want to say you don't respect Scottish elections then that will doom the union faster than anything else.
If the SNP wanted another referendum without another election in-between getting a mandate for that then that would be asking "again and again" but your notion of "20 years" has no grounding within our constitutional settlement.
No Parliament can bind its successors has been a clear principle of our Parliamentary Democracy for hundreds of years. This Parliament is not bound by a vote nearly a decade ago now when so much has changed inbetween, it either chooses to respect the Scottish electorates choice in 2021 or it does not - there is no hiding place.
Matters related to the Union are explicitly reserved to Westminster. I know the SNP believes that doesn’t include referendums but that is a minority view.
That is the current constitutional settlement. If you don’t like it you need to change it not just set it aside
I've just been invited to take part in a clinical trial for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, have volunteered for such trials a few months ago. The missus reckons there's no point though, and that I might miss out on being vaccinated with the AZ vaccine (I'm in my early 50s) because of my participation in the trial.
I'd also not be able to continue donating blood, and I'd be putting myself at increased risk of contracting Covid from additional exposure to people in the course of the trial, which might then be a risk to my elderly mother (who I do odd jobs for) and my vulnerable sister (who I take to chemo appointments).
Those factors plus the general hassle of participating make me think I should cancel the introductory appointment. What do people think? Is it still worth volunteering for such trials now that we have two working vaccines?
And what level of effectiveness can we have “every confidence in” ?
70% from 21 days after the first dose before the second.
That’s a very provisional figure to have every confidence in. As you know, I approve the decision, but I’m not a fan of regulators indulging in hyperbole.
What you can write on the internet but never say in public or print
I am sorry I didn't catch the guys name.
Edit - Found it, Professor Wei Shen Lim.
Not really sure why that merited an apology.
No. Well you wouldn't.
For someone who castigates the Oxford-AZN trials as sloppy it's fantastically ironic not to bother looking up the scientist's name before posting on here that he is 'Mrs Chinese Egghead.'
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?).
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.
I've just been invited to take part in a clinical trial for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, have volunteered for such trials a few months ago. The missus reckons there's no point though, and that I might miss out on being vaccinated with the AZ vaccine (I'm in my early 50s) because of my participation in the trial.
I'd also not be able to continue donating blood, and I'd be putting myself at increased risk of contracting Covid from additional exposure to people in the course of the trial, which might then be a risk to my elderly mother (who I do odd jobs for) and my vulnerable sister (who I take to chemo appointments).
Those factors plus the general hassle of participating make me think I should cancel the introductory appointment. What do people think? Is it still worth volunteering for such trials now that we have two working vaccines?
Hmm, the J&J single shot trial is almost complete so this must be for the booster version, if you end up in the placebo arm you'd have to wait until July or so before you were eligible for anything else. As someone who is just over 50 it's a two month delay for a vaccine that may never be used if the single shot version has 70%+ efficacy.
» 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.
Powers on referendums are not explicitly reserved.
Suppose Charles will stop respecting the current constitutional set up now.
Unfortunately holiday reporting effects are unlikely to give us usable stats until at least this time next week, so the government is going to have to make decisions in the absence of them.
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?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
IANAE but my recollection is that Boudicca's husband was a ruler in Norfolk and that her rebellion was principally in East Anglia. As she was a queen of the Iceni I am struggling to see how that makes them Welsh, as opposed to Britons (many of whom may have spoken a language more related to Welsh than other current languages). Happy to have the error of my ways explained.
But, Boudicca's rebellion was not in "East Anglia" .
The Angles were yet to arrive on the shores of the country we now call "England". There was to be no Kingdom of the East Angles until many hundreds of years later.
What you can write on the internet but never say in public or print
I am sorry I didn't catch the guys name.
Edit - Found it, Professor Wei Shen Lim.
Not really sure why that merited an apology.
No. Well you wouldn't.
For someone who castigates the Oxford-AZN trials as sloppy it's fantastically ironic not to bother looking up the scientist's name before posting on here that he is 'Mrs Chinese Egghead.'
Standards are a bit different between something billions would benefit from and a vaccine trial, don’t you think?
And what level of effectiveness can we have “every confidence in” ?
70% from 21 days after the first dose before the second.
That’s a very provisional figure to have every confidence in. As you know, I approve the decision, but I’m not a fan of regulators indulging in hyperbole.
It also doesn't make sense, if it's 70% after a single jab then why does the trial data say 62% after two jabs, does the second jab have -8% efficacy? Why bother with it if that's the case. Once again it seems as though the AZ trial has been a bit of a mess.
The Internal Markets Bill will ultimately be seen for what it was - a device to show that Boris just might be slighty mad enough to No Deal - and of no wider application. And that device worked
No Deal was never a serious threat.
But you fell for it, so I guess it did work.
The EU fell forvit, so I guess it did work.
Or were the EU just lying to us when they said it was the most likely outcome? Surely not....
What you can write on the internet but never say in public or print
I am sorry I didn't catch the guys name.
Edit - Found it, Professor Wei Shen Lim.
Not really sure why that merited an apology.
No. Well you wouldn't.
For someone who castigates the Oxford-AZN trials as sloppy it's fantastically ironic not to bother looking up the scientist's name before posting on here that he is 'Mrs Chinese Egghead.'
The same standards of accuracy may well not apply to medical trials and anonymous internet commenting, but he has apologised.
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.
----
If I am lucky I might get my by August.
So those of us who are teachers over 50 with underlying health conditions should probably be towards the front of the queue.
» 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.
It absolutely does cut it.
Scotland has elections. They should be respected.
If you want to say you don't respect Scottish elections then that will doom the union faster than anything else.
If the SNP wanted another referendum without another election in-between getting a mandate for that then that would be asking "again and again" but your notion of "20 years" has no grounding within our constitutional settlement.
No Parliament can bind its successors has been a clear principle of our Parliamentary Democracy for hundreds of years. This Parliament is not bound by a vote nearly a decade ago now when so much has changed inbetween, it either chooses to respect the Scottish electorates choice in 2021 or it does not - there is no hiding place.
Matters related to the Union are explicitly reserved to Westminster. I know the SNP believes that doesn’t include referendums but that is a minority view.
That is the current constitutional settlement. If you don’t like it you need to change it not just set it aside
Absolutely it is reserved to Westminster, and nearly 100% of Scottish Westminster MPs are in favour of another referendum. People are campaigning to change it and are doing so democratically at the ballot box.
Now Scotland has a regularly scheduled election next year. If the SNP win a mandate for a referendum then Westminster has the ability to respect the will of the voters, or the ability to treat voters with contempt.
In my view politicians treating voters with contempt is not smart or productive.
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?
The Iceni were Welsh.
Are you sure you don't mean that the Welsh were Iceni (and other Celtic tribes).
What evidence is there that the Iceni originated in Wales?
What were the boundaries of Wales when there was no England?
There was no England, because there were no Anglo-Saxons on the island that we call Great Britain.
And what level of effectiveness can we have “every confidence in” ?
Having read the trial documents the efficacy is an odd one to understand and easily compare. In the AZ trial because of the weekly PCR test for participants, anyone who tested positive was then assessed for symptoms and even the most minor ones such as the sniffles or a solitary headache would count towards the total number of symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm. They created a rod for their own back because not a single person out there cares about getting the sniffles or a couple of headaches or other relatively minor symptoms. Symptoms that didn't get recorded in the other trials and didn't count towards their symptomatic COVID patients in the vaccine arm.
I await the full trial data and classification of symptoms in the vaccine arm, that may actually help us to calculate efficacy of it against serious symptoms and mild symptoms rather than what may just be coincidental ones.
My understanding is that to be "symptomatic" in the AZN trial cov002 that they had to have one of 3 symptoms: fever, cough or loss of taste and smell. Anything less than that would count as "asymptomatic" even if there were symptoms.
In the South African and Brazilian studies, there were different criteria for symptoms (as well as different placebo and dosage regimes) and no asymptomatic testing.
And what level of effectiveness can we have “every confidence in” ?
70% from 21 days after the first dose before the second.
That’s a very provisional figure to have every confidence in. As you know, I approve the decision, but I’m not a fan of regulators indulging in hyperbole.
It also doesn't make sense, if it's 70% after a single jab then why does the trial data say 62% after two jabs, does the second jab have -8% efficacy? Why bother with it if that's the case. Once again it seems as though the AZ trial has been a bit of a mess.
This was directly asked in the briefing and the rather wooly answer was "70% figure is from a subset of the trial group so not directly comparable with the 62% number".
But as I said they did have to do a fairly decent amount of flanneling when asked about the AZN trial data...
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.
We all come from Tanzania, Mr Blackford.
Not necessarily. That's where the fossils have been found - not quite the same thing.
I live in an evidence-based world.....
Quite.The limitations of the evidence and how it can be analysed have to be taken into account.
Firstly, fossils are only preserved in an environment which favours them; and also one has to look.
Secondly, as a fundamental matter of classificatory and phylogenetic principle since the cladistics revolution of the 1970s, it is impossible to prove an ancestor-descendant relationship as such. Of course, in practice your fossil may end up being so similar to the reconstructed hypothetical ancestral form that it might as well be the same thing - or, crucially indistinguishably, its close relative.
So the question is whether the line that led to modern humans led through the Rift Valley or lived in, say, an environment where fossils were not preserved easily (e.g. jungle), or conversely a location of which the deposits have been destroyed (erosion, glaciation, submergence, etc.).
Starmer is making a mistake. Labour is making a mistake. They are in the same lobby as Steve Baker. Disgusting decision.
Instead of respecting Democracy they are playing political games.
To believe in democracy you have to believe everyone in parliament can vote with their conscience on what they think of the deal, for the country and their constituents, without the weapon of no deal held to their heads.
If then it passes, it passes. That’s democracy saying yes. And, if governments deal can’t pass despite an eighty seat majority over all other parties, democracy is saying no.
Is that all Labour is now, a split between unreconstructed IRA loving Marxists or ambitious New Labour sell outs? If so then it is toast. This is the day history will point to as the day Labour became toast.
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?
The Iceni were Welsh.
So, British?
I don't really know what you mean by the ovate word "British".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
It really isn't that difficult to understand. 'Britain' is a geographical expression. People that live on this island are British - they wouldn't be any less British if they left the political structure of the UK, and weren't any less British before the UK begun. Europe is exactly the same. In that sense, Scotland has always been both European and British.
I suspect that Blackford means that the early inhabitants of Scotland had stronger links with the continent and what is now the Republic of Ireland than they did with those dwelling in the rest of Britain. This may or may not be the case, although what relevance it has to the Brexit deal is anyone's guess.
Maybe he likes to say things to provoke pointless arguments on nerdy political websites that he can enjoy reading later
The Scots had contacts with Ireland because that was where they came from (The Kingdom of Dalriada covered both Ulster and Argyll at one point). The fact that we know very little about the Picts probably shows they had very little contact with anyone. Vikings, well we all had them. And don't forget the English had a lot of contact with northern mainland Europe until we became preoccupied with Vikings.
Comments
A referendum on the constitutional rules is not the same as an election of a representative body with a tone limited mandate
I personally think that, every so often, the people should be given a chance to bless the constitutional set up. The EU referendum was long over due, for example.
The length of time is a question of practicality. It clearly makes no sense to have a vote every month. And 5 years would just lead to perpetual campaigning and instability. But there’s no particular magic to 20 years
Did they forget about some people?
Thus, if it doesn't work against Cockney Covid, unlike Pfizer vaccine, it can't quickly be tinkered with and we go around jabbing people again?
Claiming that Britishness only starts with the Union of Crowns in 1603, or the Union of Parliaments in 1707, is a bit inconsistent with claiming Europeanness on the basis of a few Scottish soldiers fighting for the French in the Hundred Year's War, or a Scottish Monarch growing up in France.
And it makes sod all difference to whether people are willing to share governance with other people on this Island, or want to create another border, another division.
Scotland has elections. They should be respected.
If you want to say you don't respect Scottish elections then that will doom the union faster than anything else.
If the SNP wanted another referendum without another election in-between getting a mandate for that then that would be asking "again and again" but your notion of "20 years" has no grounding within our constitutional settlement.
No Parliament can bind its successors has been a clear principle of our Parliamentary Democracy for hundreds of years. This Parliament is not bound by a vote nearly a decade ago now when so much has changed inbetween, it either chooses to respect the Scottish electorates choice in 2021 or it does not - there is no hiding place.
But if you don't you can form a soft rock group and take up your place at high table that way.
This has been a bit farcical and now we find out that mass manufacturing isn't ready either. A 9-12 week delay for a new trial would be warranted IMO and the MHRA are going to look stupid when the FDA insists on one.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
The Iceni with Brythonic Celts. They spoke a language related to Old Welsh.
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/10/uk-poised-to-shun-eu-coronavirus-vaccine-scheme
If the Lib Dems won the 2019 Referendum then Brexit would have been cancelled. Because Parliamentary elections trump any prior referendum or election and aren't bound to anything prior. Same principle applies for 2021. No Parliament is bound by its predecessors.
And what about Nigel? Any plans for him, I wonder?
Like, this exact scenario was in the SNP manifesto.
Truss could not have been Chancellor. We need to understand Boris's deeply cynical modus operandi. He needed Brexiteer cover for the EU deal and compromises he knew were necessary to sign one, and also cover for charges of racism. Truss can and probably will replace Raab; she could not have replaced Patel or Javid.
If the public don't want a particular style of campaigning and instability they will punish those parties advocating it - as happened in 2019 when the public punished the parties disrespecting the prior vote and wanted it "done" - but that is for the public to decide at elections.
Westminster can and should authorise it based upon the votes of Scottish voters at Scottish elections. If the Scottish voters deny the SNP (and fellow travellers) a majority then that is democracy. That the SNP want one will have been rejected by the electorate, que sera sera. Let the voters decide.
Once again, not backing the Imperial mRNA vaccine is the issue no one seems to be addressing here, we had a potential homegrown candidate as good as Pfizer and Moderna with the same quick editable vector but we seem to have passed it up.
Now, should the UK be funding investment in mRNA tech longer term, which has clear advantages in lots of areas, seems like a yes.
I can't thank of any other of the current crop of politicians that would have played that card. Bravo, Boris. He used it to great effect. Thin as Remainers might claim the Christmas Eve Agreement to be, I have no doubt that it could have been far, far worse for the UK.
The likes of Birmingham Edgbaston, Leeds NW, Cardiff N, Sheffield Hallam, Bristol W haven't been solid Conservative seats since 1992.
https://twitter.com/TimesofIsrael/status/1344033205897216000
I fear all that will happen is the likes of Prof Pantsdown will get a load more money thrown at him.
If (I) is No it (ii) is Yes then effectively it is a “reserved power” for the electorate
But you fell for it, so I guess it did work.
Much of what the EU does is coordination between essentially national capabilities. This is very useful if what you want is a common set of rules, that do not need to change rapidly, but everyone can agree on.
That Japan signed their Trade Deal within a week of week the IMB being published, then Canada followed then dozens of other nations all before the IMB was withdrawn following further negotiations with the EU shows other nations were not concerned by it.
The IMB was a card that we had in the most important international negotiations we have had for about fifty years - no more, no less.
That happening at some point was absolutely inevitable.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/second-referendum-scottish-independence
They are and I have praised their technology with this vaccine. It is, indeed, marvellous.
However, and it's a very big however, developing a vaccine which requires the mRNA to be stored inside its cocoon at -70C is almost a disaster. Moderna have managed theirs at -20C which is obviously a lot better (within reach of standard freezer operating temp). And the cocoon also disintegrates rapidly outside of the -70C.
So this is going to be a case where the AstaZeneca vaccine has a FAR higher global success rate than Pfizer's even if it's the case that is is 'only' 80% effective compared to 95%.
What evidence is there that the Iceni originated in Wales?
I suspect that Blackford means that the early inhabitants of Scotland had stronger links with the continent and what is now the Republic of Ireland than they did with those dwelling in the rest of Britain. This may or may not be the case, although what relevance it has to the Brexit deal is anyone's guess.
This 88 year old was not given AZN. He received the Pfizer one.
I await the full trial data and classification of symptoms in the vaccine arm, that may actually help us to calculate efficacy of it against serious symptoms and mild symptoms rather than what may just be coincidental ones.
That is the current constitutional settlement. If you don’t like it you need to change it not just set it aside
Gloriously incomprehensible announcement. I have not got the foggiest idea what it applies to.
https://gov.wales/changes-rates-and-bands-land-transaction-tax-december-2020
I'd also not be able to continue donating blood, and I'd be putting myself at increased risk of contracting Covid from additional exposure to people in the course of the trial, which might then be a risk to my elderly mother (who I do odd jobs for) and my vulnerable sister (who I take to chemo appointments).
Those factors plus the general hassle of participating make me think I should cancel the introductory appointment. What do people think? Is it still worth volunteering for such trials now that we have two working vaccines?
As you know, I approve the decision, but I’m not a fan of regulators indulging in hyperbole.
For someone who castigates the Oxford-AZN trials as sloppy it's fantastically ironic not to bother looking up the scientist's name before posting on here that he is 'Mrs Chinese Egghead.'
The Angles were yet to arrive on the shores of the country we now call "England". There was to be no Kingdom of the East Angles until many hundreds of years later.
Or were the EU just lying to us when they said it was the most likely outcome? Surely not....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/11/no-deal-brexit-likeliest-ursula-von-der-leyen-eu-leaders
Almost like he has an agenda..
Now Scotland has a regularly scheduled election next year. If the SNP win a mandate for a referendum then Westminster has the ability to respect the will of the voters, or the ability to treat voters with contempt.
In my view politicians treating voters with contempt is not smart or productive.
Yesterday
The day before
The day before that
There was no England, because there were no Anglo-Saxons on the island that we call Great Britain.
They had not yet arrived.
In the South African and Brazilian studies, there were different criteria for symptoms (as well as different placebo and dosage regimes) and no asymptomatic testing.
But as I said they did have to do a fairly decent amount of flanneling when asked about the AZN trial data...
Firstly, fossils are only preserved in an environment which favours them; and also one has to look.
Secondly, as a fundamental matter of classificatory and phylogenetic principle since the cladistics revolution of the 1970s, it is impossible to prove an ancestor-descendant relationship as such. Of course, in practice your fossil may end up being so similar to the reconstructed hypothetical ancestral form that it might as well be the same thing - or, crucially indistinguishably, its close relative.
So the question is whether the line that led to modern humans led through the Rift Valley or lived in, say, an environment where fossils were not preserved easily (e.g. jungle), or conversely a location of which the deposits have been destroyed (erosion, glaciation, submergence, etc.).
Instead of respecting Democracy they are playing political games.
To believe in democracy you have to believe everyone in parliament can vote with their conscience on what they think of the deal, for the country and their constituents, without the weapon of no deal held to their heads.
If then it passes, it passes. That’s democracy saying yes. And, if governments deal can’t pass despite an eighty seat majority over all other parties, democracy is saying no.
Is that all Labour is now, a split between unreconstructed IRA loving Marxists or ambitious New Labour sell outs? If so then it is toast. This is the day history will point to as the day Labour became toast.
Bit like his "don't panic but....." post before xmas re non existent food shortages in his local supermarket