Sky News reporting sounds very disappointed no queues at the ports.
The problem isn't queues today it's when the French lorry drivers decide they have a problem with their English counterparts. The French have no reason to temper their free-wheeling methods of getting their own way. They aren't our friends anymore!
You say that like the French have never played silly buggers before...its an annual event that they strike over something, from the air traffic controllers to the lorry drivers, there is always weeks where they down tools.
Well , from their point of view , it's got the average Frenchman better pay and conditions than the average Briton.
And with higher productivity and lower weekly hours than the UK. Where did it all go wrong for the Frenchies?
Averages aren't all.
The way it work is this
- A substantial chunk of french people do much better than average. They are basically un-fireable at work, etc etc. A good friend got a vast 4 bed apartment in a very fashionable part of Paris for next to no rent. As "social housing". His family knew all the right people. He was an oil company executive. - A bigger chunk, who aren't a part of the "thing" are much worse off than in the UK. This is why London is full of middle class French people. They like those job thingies. - At the bottom you have the people of The Districts. Who are in the shit up to their noses.
Absolutely. For a country that like to pretend to itself that it believes in egalite they have some way to go.
Roger only likes to hang around with the well to do and turns his nose up at anyone else, which is why he loves it.
Modern France doesn't just perform better in average salary and workplace condition metrics, but on healthcare, mental illness, family breakdown and many other indicators. Some of these things aren't impossible for Britain to regain, or alien to it, as Eurosceptics imagine ; it shared many of these positive trends and indicators with France and other countries in the second half of the 1960s.
Again - those things are better for the *some*. France simply has a different, and often more extreme divides.
It is interesting, for example, to see how the wine country economy in areas such as Chablis work. Very attractive on the surface. But when you work out where they have put the poor people.....
I strongly suspect that mental health in The Districts around Paris is problematic. Certainly physical health outcomes are.
For a happy and prosperous nation, they seem very unhappy with their lot if the weekly widespread violent yellow vest protests are anything to go by, the constant striking etc...before considering the 100,000s of French who choose to live in London rather than France, and of course the far less reported regular disturbances in the surburbs of major cities.
You don't see that widespread level of public disquiet in Germany or here.
The problem is the very substantial class of those who "have made it" under the existing system. But are very aware of the measures by which they are protected.
Then there is a large chunk off the working and middle class outside that - and their dream is to join the "thing", not tear it down. Hence the violence in the face of attempts to remove the protections.
The more time I spend in France, the more I think that it is the UK with some of the problems turned up to 11 - the extreme stratification of society..... the ENA makes the Oxbridge thing look all encompassing.
Yes even more French Presidents have been to ENA than UK PMs to Oxbridge or US Presidents to Harvard or Yale.
De Gaulle and Sarkozy the only exceptions in recent decades and De Gaulle went to a top military school
It's not just that - the whole top of the French system went there. Civil Service, politics, media, third sector etc etc...
Indeed and almost all of them live in Paris, France is even more centralised and elitist than we are
The savage hatred of "Paris" - meaning the elite - in France, is something to behold.
In rural France, British people are regarded as almost human, in comparison to "Parisians".
I have many friends in France having worked for a French company for 18 years prior to starting consulting. If anyone ever asked you whether you visited France much and you said yes I spend a lot of time in Paris the immediate response was 'Paris is not France'. The was the same response whether it was in Nantes, Reims or Marseille. They really, deeply loathed Parisians.
Yes - the strength of the reaction makes MalcomG sound like a Londonophile.
It's not just here and France. One of my wife's cousins and her family moved to the Maritimes. They were advised to say that they had moved from Ontario rather than Toronto otherwise people would assume that they were arrogant arseholes.
Its the town mouse vs country mouse everywhere. I used to hear it said of Aucklanders when I lived in NZ.
Universal and fine as banter with an edge. Less fine when it morphs into "metropolitan elite" vs "the REAL people" where definition of metropolitan elite is partial to urban life and the occasional salad.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Is ‘BJ will not allow the Scots to have another referendum ‘cos they hate him and he knows he’ll lose’ going to be at the forefront of the justifications for not having a referendum?
Churchillian!
It's naked electoral calculation, something I'd hope an SNP fan would appreciate.
As a matter of fact, I don't think Boris would lose, but he would undoubtedly cost the campaign votes, and I would prefer Scottish voters to endorse the Union with genuine satisfaction, not through gritted teeth.
Lol, we mustn’t have a referendum while Scots have a pm imposed on them that they hate and despise, let’s wait till we can impose a pm towards whom they’re vaguely indifferent. Once we win we can get back to imposing pms that they hate and despise, trebles all round!
Or perhaps, like Blair and Brown, Scotland can once again inflict a PM I have a strong disapprobation for on me. As any non-SNP voter in Scottish parliamentary elections knows, sometimes you just get one you can't stand, and they're always the ones who stick around.
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
A fine notion, but how to you propose that happens if there is a new indyref this year?
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
He will not change his mind about risking being the Lord North of the 21st century and nor will his Cabinet
He'll be the Lord North of the 21st Century even if Scotland votes to leave under a future Labour administration. The history books will record his grubby mitts being all over it.
Nope, it is Lord North recorded as having lost America and Attlee recorded as being the PM who gave up India and Lord George recorded as having created the Irish Free State, history books only record facts
Riddle me this, if England isn’t a nation or a devolved administration, what is it?
A ceremonial country, without even its own Parliament like Scotland or Wales.
The UK is the only sovereign country in Britain and NI, England only exists in football and rugby fixtures (England's cricket team technically also includes Wales)
Golly, the nutty statchoo defenders are right, you can hardly call yourself English anymore..
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
Eurosceptics spent forty years blaming everything on being in the EU, turning the tables on them will be amusing.
Yes I'm up for it. I was flirting with "moving on" but on reflection that would be taking altruism just slightly too far.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
He will not change his mind about risking being the Lord North of the 21st century and nor will his Cabinet
He'll be the Lord North of the 21st Century even if Scotland votes to leave under a future Labour administration. The history books will record his grubby mitts being all over it.
Nope, it is Lord North recorded as having lost America and Attlee recorded as being the PM who gave up India and Lord George recorded as having created the Irish Free State, history books only record facts
And it's a fact that Brexit and it's adopted figurehead - Boris Johnson, has caused support for independence to go through the roof.
Coronavirus patients on NHS intensive care wards are already in 'competition' for ventilators to keep them alive as infections and hospital admissions caused by the disease surge in London, a doctor has warned.
Dr Megan Smith, from Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital Trust in the capital, said medics are facing 'horrifying' decisions as they have to choose which patients get access to lifesaving treatment for Covid-19 and which don't.
I thought we had over produced ventilators in the Spring? Where are they?
Mothballed.
Ventilation is much less used now, CPAP and high flow oxygen has reduced the need, though about 10% of Covid-19 patients still need ventilation.
The main problem is personnel. In the email yesterday the Royal London said that they were stretching ICU nurses to 1 for 3 patients. The usual is 1 to 1 for category 3 (ventilated patients). Ventilated patients are very unwell in other complex ways.
Rather like the Battle of Britain, the bigger threat to the defence was pilot losses than planes.
"Comparisons are naturally being made on the number of vaccinations administered by the four nations of the UK," he said in a ministerial statement to Senedd members."
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
He will not change his mind about risking being the Lord North of the 21st century and nor will his Cabinet
He'll be the Lord North of the 21st Century even if Scotland votes to leave under a future Labour administration. The history books will record his grubby mitts being all over it.
Nope, it is Lord North recorded as having lost America and Attlee recorded as being the PM who gave up India and Lord George recorded as having created the Irish Free State, history books only record facts
And it's a fact that Brexit and it's adopted figurehead - Boris Johnson, has caused support for independence to go through the roof.
The truth hurts my friend.
Except it hasn't, 62% of Scots voted Remain in the 2016 EU referendum, 45% of Scots voted SNP in the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote and despite Boris Johnson being UK PM.
Zero change from the 45% of Scots who voted for independence in the 2014 referendum
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
A fine notion, but how to you propose that happens if there is a new indyref this year?
I make no comment about when an IndyRef should be held. It will obviously be after the Scottish Parliament elections in any case, and really should be a matter for them.
Westminster needs to get ahead of this. Now ideally.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
He will not change his mind about risking being the Lord North of the 21st century and nor will his Cabinet
He'll be the Lord North of the 21st Century even if Scotland votes to leave under a future Labour administration. The history books will record his grubby mitts being all over it.
Nope, it is Lord North recorded as having lost America and Attlee recorded as being the PM who gave up India and Lord George recorded as having created the Irish Free State, history books only record facts
And it's a fact that Brexit and it's adopted figurehead - Boris Johnson, has caused support for independence to go through the roof.
The truth hurts my friend.
Except it hasn't, 62% of Scots voted Remain in the 2016 EU referendum, 45% of Scots voted SNP in the 2019 general election.
Zero change from the 45% of Scots who voted for independence in the 2014 referendum
Sky News reporting sounds very disappointed no queues at the ports.
The problem isn't queues today it's when the French lorry drivers decide they have a problem with their English counterparts. The French have no reason to temper their free-wheeling methods of getting their own way. They aren't our friends anymore!
You say that like the French have never played silly buggers before...its an annual event that they strike over something, from the air traffic controllers to the lorry drivers, there is always weeks where they down tools.
Well , from their point of view , it's got the average Frenchman better pay and conditions than the average Briton.
And with higher productivity and lower weekly hours than the UK. Where did it all go wrong for the Frenchies?
Averages aren't all.
The way it work is this
- A substantial chunk of french people do much better than average. They are basically un-fireable at work, etc etc. A good friend got a vast 4 bed apartment in a very fashionable part of Paris for next to no rent. As "social housing". His family knew all the right people. He was an oil company executive. - A bigger chunk, who aren't a part of the "thing" are much worse off than in the UK. This is why London is full of middle class French people. They like those job thingies. - At the bottom you have the people of The Districts. Who are in the shit up to their noses.
Absolutely. For a country that like to pretend to itself that it believes in egalite they have some way to go.
Roger only likes to hang around with the well to do and turns his nose up at anyone else, which is why he loves it.
Modern France doesn't just perform better in average salary and workplace condition metrics, but on healthcare, mental illness, family breakdown and many other indicators. Some of these things aren't impossible for Britain to regain, or alien to it, as Eurosceptics imagine ; it shared many of these positive trends and indicators with France and other countries in the second half of the 1960s.
Again - those things are better for the *some*. France simply has a different, and often more extreme divides.
It is interesting, for example, to see how the wine country economy in areas such as Chablis work. Very attractive on the surface. But when you work out where they have put the poor people.....
I strongly suspect that mental health in The Districts around Paris is problematic. Certainly physical health outcomes are.
For a happy and prosperous nation, they seem very unhappy with their lot if the weekly widespread violent yellow vest protests are anything to go by, the constant striking etc...before considering the 100,000s of French who choose to live in London rather than France, and of course the far less reported regular disturbances in the surburbs of major cities.
You don't see that widespread level of public disquiet in Germany or here.
The problem is the very substantial class of those who "have made it" under the existing system. But are very aware of the measures by which they are protected.
Then there is a large chunk off the working and middle class outside that - and their dream is to join the "thing", not tear it down. Hence the violence in the face of attempts to remove the protections.
The more time I spend in France, the more I think that it is the UK with some of the problems turned up to 11 - the extreme stratification of society..... the ENA makes the Oxbridge thing look all encompassing.
Yes even more French Presidents have been to ENA than UK PMs to Oxbridge or US Presidents to Harvard or Yale.
De Gaulle and Sarkozy the only exceptions in recent decades and De Gaulle went to a top military school
It's not just that - the whole top of the French system went there. Civil Service, politics, media, third sector etc etc...
Indeed and almost all of them live in Paris, France is even more centralised and elitist than we are
The savage hatred of "Paris" - meaning the elite - in France, is something to behold.
In rural France, British people are regarded as almost human, in comparison to "Parisians".
I have many friends in France having worked for a French company for 18 years prior to starting consulting. If anyone ever asked you whether you visited France much and you said yes I spend a lot of time in Paris the immediate response was 'Paris is not France'. The was the same response whether it was in Nantes, Reims or Marseille. They really, deeply loathed Parisians.
Yes - the strength of the reaction makes MalcomG sound like a Londonophile.
It's not just here and France. One of my wife's cousins and her family moved to the Maritimes. They were advised to say that they had moved from Ontario rather than Toronto otherwise people would assume that they were arrogant arseholes.
Its the town mouse vs country mouse everywhere. I used to hear it said of Aucklanders when I lived in NZ.
Universal and fine as banter with an edge. Less fine when it morphs into "metropolitan elite" vs "the REAL people" where definition of metropolitan elite is partial to urban life and the occasional salad.
The French version is really savage - something to see (and hear). Nasty to the point of it stopping being a joke.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
He will not change his mind about risking being the Lord North of the 21st century and nor will his Cabinet
Weren't you certain Johnson would stand by his "die in a ditch" pledge over the Article 50 extension in late 2019?
How did that turn out?
Johnson is more flexible with his commitments. An SNP majority at the Holyrood elections would be enough that he could grant another referendum.
I can understand why he wouldn't want to say so before the Holyrood elections, of course, but we don't need to pretend here.
The scenario where I have some doubt is where there is a Nationalist majority, between the Greens and the SNP, but the SNP alone are short of a majority. That's the situation at present which was enough for May to refuse consent. I suspect that Johnson would do the same.
I've been thinking about the Olympics and I wonder whether the IOC will ask the US, UK, Japan and EU for a couple of hundred thousand vaccine doses soon for athletes, coaches, media and other various people involved in putting it on. The world needs a bit of a lift, the Olympics might come at exactly the right time to take everyone's minds off the shit.
Talking of Scotland, any recommendations for a decent hotel in Glasgow?
As it stands I have to spent three nights in Glasgow in November.
Haven’t stayed in a hotel in Glasgow since I moved here so a bit out of the loop!
A pal stayed in Dakota Glasgow and said it was pretty good, very central. The Kimpton Blythswood Square looks pretty swish. Blythswood Sq apparently used to be the haunt of ‘commercial’ ladies but I’m sure that’s no longer the case..
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
So what a former Big Man said off the cuff on telly to Andrew Marr dictates constitutional law, does it? Not getting a very rule-of-law vibe off that one.
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
Eurosceptics spent forty years blaming everything on being in the EU, turning the tables on them will be amusing.
Yes I'm up for it. I was flirting with "moving on" but on reflection that would be taking altruism just slightly too far.
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
Eurosceptics spent forty years blaming everything on being in the EU, turning the tables on them will be amusing.
Yes I'm up for it. I was flirting with "moving on" but on reflection that would be taking altruism just slightly too far.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
He will not change his mind about risking being the Lord North of the 21st century and nor will his Cabinet
Weren't you certain Johnson would stand by his "die in a ditch" pledge over the Article 50 extension in late 2019?
How did that turn out?
Johnson is more flexible with his commitments. An SNP majority at the Holyrood elections would be enough that he could grant another referendum.
I can understand why he wouldn't want to say so before the Holyrood elections, of course, but we don't need to pretend here.
The scenario where I have some doubt is where there is a Nationalist majority, between the Greens and the SNP, but the SNP alone are short of a majority. That's the situation at present which was enough for May to refuse consent. I suspect that Johnson would do the same.
Boris did not have a majority in 2019, he was impotent, he now has a majority of 80 and is master of all he surveys.
It was Parliament that voted to extend in 2019, Boris merely sent the EU a fax letting him know their decision and that he disagreed with it.
Of course if the SNP fail to even match their 2011 majority pre indyref 2014 there is zero chance of Boris even considering a request from Sturgeon for indyref2 and with the SNP on 46.5% already in 2016 and still just short of a majority they have zero room for error.
However even with an SNP majority Boris would likely not risk it either, knowing a Yes vote likely would bring his premiership to an end, it would be too high stakes a risk when he only has 6 Scottish Tory MPs and a majority of 80 in the UK so has little to lose from ignoring Sturgeon and everything to lose from listening to her
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
Eurosceptics spent forty years blaming everything on being in the EU, turning the tables on them will be amusing.
Yes I'm up for it. I was flirting with "moving on" but on reflection that would be taking altruism just slightly too far.
Who's our Farage gonna be?
If you use inability to get elected as a metric, plus preparedness to stand up for a bat-shit crazy cause at which the Establishment will point and laugh - surely, there is only person.
Step forward, your next Prime Minister, Jo Swinson....
Eg nhs staff are “back of the queue” for the vaccine with a link to a story saying they are “no longer front of the queue”. I can see the argument for nhs staff having a very high priority but it would be better if she argued from facts rather than emotion
There is a fair bit of people with an agenda popping up at the moment, spinning.
Somewhere between 12-20% of NHS doctors and nurses have received the first jab, so far.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
A Unionist respects the 2014 vote, does not appease Nationalists who would demand indyref2, then indyref3 then indyref4 at any point of their choice.
If Labour wish to allow indyref2 before a generation has elapsed since 2014 that would be their choice, hopefully Scots would again say No, if they said Yes however history would record it was under a Labour PM that the UK broke up.
What Philip Thompson thinks is irrelevant, if Scotland did go of course there would be near zero chance of a non Blairite Labour Party ever winning a rUK election again, certainly for any sustained period in power
HYUFD let's ignore for the moment whether anyone is pro or anti independence or pro or anti Brexit, but for the record I will put my bias on the record - pro remain, no strong feelings on independence.
Isn't it the case that a major argument for anti independence would be that Scotland would find itself outside of the EU if it got independence and the only way to ensure it maintained its EU membership was to vote to stay in the Union?
It is also true that Scotland voted strongly to stay in the EU which would indicate that the argument being put forward was a strong one.
Whether intentional or just a consequence of events that argument proved to be completely invalid because we have left the EU. Surely nullifies the referendum immediately. The Scots were sold a complete lie (although probably not intended). They feel rightly cheated. Even a Brexiteer, pro union person surely can see that?
Had the SNP got 60%+ of the vote consistently after the 2016 Leave vote given 62% of Scots voted Remain and had we now gone to No Deal Brexit maybe, as it is the SNP got just 45% last year post the Brexit vote ie no change at all from the 45% Yes vote in 2014 and No Deal Brexit has been avoided
Not "avoided". Grrr.
But ok, I do recognize that despite my best efforts there was much relief at a deal, any deal, even such a thin one.
Question for you though - I'm curious - did you support the decision to grant Sindy1 in 2014?
Sky News reporting sounds very disappointed no queues at the ports.
The problem isn't queues today it's when the French lorry drivers decide they have a problem with their English counterparts. The French have no reason to temper their free-wheeling methods of getting their own way. They aren't our friends anymore!
You say that like the French have never played silly buggers before...its an annual event that they strike over something, from the air traffic controllers to the lorry drivers, there is always weeks where they down tools.
Well , from their point of view , it's got the average Frenchman better pay and conditions than the average Briton.
And with higher productivity and lower weekly hours than the UK. Where did it all go wrong for the Frenchies?
Averages aren't all.
The way it work is this
- A substantial chunk of french people do much better than average. They are basically un-fireable at work, etc etc. A good friend got a vast 4 bed apartment in a very fashionable part of Paris for next to no rent. As "social housing". His family knew all the right people. He was an oil company executive. - A bigger chunk, who aren't a part of the "thing" are much worse off than in the UK. This is why London is full of middle class French people. They like those job thingies. - At the bottom you have the people of The Districts. Who are in the shit up to their noses.
Absolutely. For a country that like to pretend to itself that it believes in egalite they have some way to go.
Roger only likes to hang around with the well to do and turns his nose up at anyone else, which is why he loves it.
Modern France doesn't just perform better in average salary and workplace condition metrics, but on healthcare, mental illness, family breakdown and many other indicators. Some of these things aren't impossible for Britain to regain, or alien to it, as Eurosceptics imagine ; it shared many of these positive trends and indicators with France and other countries in the second half of the 1960s.
Again - those things are better for the *some*. France simply has a different, and often more extreme divides.
It is interesting, for example, to see how the wine country economy in areas such as Chablis work. Very attractive on the surface. But when you work out where they have put the poor people.....
I strongly suspect that mental health in The Districts around Paris is problematic. Certainly physical health outcomes are.
For a happy and prosperous nation, they seem very unhappy with their lot if the weekly widespread violent yellow vest protests are anything to go by, the constant striking etc...before considering the 100,000s of French who choose to live in London rather than France, and of course the far less reported regular disturbances in the surburbs of major cities.
You don't see that widespread level of public disquiet in Germany or here.
The problem is the very substantial class of those who "have made it" under the existing system. But are very aware of the measures by which they are protected.
Then there is a large chunk off the working and middle class outside that - and their dream is to join the "thing", not tear it down. Hence the violence in the face of attempts to remove the protections.
The more time I spend in France, the more I think that it is the UK with some of the problems turned up to 11 - the extreme stratification of society..... the ENA makes the Oxbridge thing look all encompassing.
Yes even more French Presidents have been to ENA than UK PMs to Oxbridge or US Presidents to Harvard or Yale.
De Gaulle and Sarkozy the only exceptions in recent decades and De Gaulle went to a top military school
It's not just that - the whole top of the French system went there. Civil Service, politics, media, third sector etc etc...
Is that not the same here? A quick look at Wikipedia for presenters of politics programmes finds Andrew Marr and Chris Mason went to Cambridge, David Dimbleby and Fiona Bruce Oxford.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
He will not change his mind about risking being the Lord North of the 21st century and nor will his Cabinet
He'll be the Lord North of the 21st Century even if Scotland votes to leave under a future Labour administration. The history books will record his grubby mitts being all over it.
Nope, it is Lord North recorded as having lost America and Attlee recorded as being the PM who gave up India and Lord George recorded as having created the Irish Free State, history books only record facts
And it's a fact that Brexit and it's adopted figurehead - Boris Johnson, has caused support for independence to go through the roof.
The truth hurts my friend.
Except it hasn't, 62% of Scots voted Remain in the 2016 EU referendum, 45% of Scots voted SNP in the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote and despite Boris Johnson being UK PM.
Zero change from the 45% of Scots who voted for independence in the 2014 referendum
What percentage of non SNP voting Scots support independence? Do you think it greater than zero?
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
Talking of Scotland, any recommendations for a decent hotel in Glasgow?
As it stands I have to spent three nights in Glasgow in November.
Haven’t stayed in a hotel in Glasgow since I moved here so a bit out of the loop!
A pal stayed in Dakota Glasgow and said it was pretty good, very central. The Kimpton Blythswood Square looks pretty swish. Blythswood Sq apparently used to be the haunt of ‘commercial’ ladies but I’m sure that’s no longer the case..
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
He will not change his mind about risking being the Lord North of the 21st century and nor will his Cabinet
He'll be the Lord North of the 21st Century even if Scotland votes to leave under a future Labour administration. The history books will record his grubby mitts being all over it.
Nope, it is Lord North recorded as having lost America and Attlee recorded as being the PM who gave up India and Lord George recorded as having created the Irish Free State, history books only record facts
And it's a fact that Brexit and it's adopted figurehead - Boris Johnson, has caused support for independence to go through the roof.
The truth hurts my friend.
Except it hasn't, 62% of Scots voted Remain in the 2016 EU referendum, 45% of Scots voted SNP in the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote and despite Boris Johnson being UK PM.
Zero change from the 45% of Scots who voted for independence in the 2014 referendum
What percentage of non SNP voting Scots support independence? Do you think it greater than zero?
The only pro independence parties in Scotland are the SNP and Greens, if Remain voting Scots felt that strongly about independence post Brexit they would be voting for them.
Yet just 45% voted SNP and 1% voted Green in 2019 ie 46% combined and just 1% up on the 45% who voted Yes in 2014, so as far as I am concerned tough
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
So what a former Big Man said off the cuff on telly to Andrew Marr dictates constitutional law, does it? Not getting a very rule-of-law vibe off that one.
But I believe it is now written into the UK constitution (HYUDF edition)?
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
He will not change his mind about risking being the Lord North of the 21st century and nor will his Cabinet
He'll be the Lord North of the 21st Century even if Scotland votes to leave under a future Labour administration. The history books will record his grubby mitts being all over it.
Nope, it is Lord North recorded as having lost America and Attlee recorded as being the PM who gave up India and Lord George recorded as having created the Irish Free State, history books only record facts
And it's a fact that Brexit and it's adopted figurehead - Boris Johnson, has caused support for independence to go through the roof.
The truth hurts my friend.
Except it hasn't, 62% of Scots voted Remain in the 2016 EU referendum, 45% of Scots voted SNP in the 2019 general election after the Brexit vote and despite Boris Johnson being UK PM.
Zero change from the 45% of Scots who voted for independence in the 2014 referendum
What percentage of non SNP voting Scots support independence? Do you think it greater than zero?
The only pro independence parties in Scotland are the SNP and Greens, if Remain voting Scots felt that strongly about independence post Brexit they would be voting for them.
Yet just 45% voted SNP and 1% voted Green in 2019 ie 46% combined and just 1% up on the 45% who voted Yes in 2014, so as far as I am concerned tough
Do you think no SLAB voters support independence?
Also, I don't think the 2019 Westminster elections are the right assessment. The Scottish Greens will poll a lot higher at Holyrood.
If you are so confident that only 45% support independence then why not have a referendum?
Yes, glad to see some in the press finally catch on. We measure public sector output, most other countries measure input and add a multiplier. France has the most egregious method of simply multiplying public sector input by 1.2 and calling it output.
It means that the UK records a steeper fall but also a faster recovery. We already saw evidence of this in the June to August period where three month growth was really high as the state caught up with healthcare output. I expect this current period will again be very negative but as we ramp up vaccinations, clear hospitals and get schools operating normally public sector output will rebound almost totally.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
He will not change his mind about risking being the Lord North of the 21st century and nor will his Cabinet
Weren't you certain Johnson would stand by his "die in a ditch" pledge over the Article 50 extension in late 2019?
How did that turn out?
Johnson is more flexible with his commitments. An SNP majority at the Holyrood elections would be enough that he could grant another referendum.
I can understand why he wouldn't want to say so before the Holyrood elections, of course, but we don't need to pretend here.
The scenario where I have some doubt is where there is a Nationalist majority, between the Greens and the SNP, but the SNP alone are short of a majority. That's the situation at present which was enough for May to refuse consent. I suspect that Johnson would do the same.
Boris did not have a majority in 2019, he was impotent, he now has a majority of 80 and is master of all he surveys.
It was Parliament that voted to extend in 2019, Boris merely sent the EU a fax letting him know their decision and that he disagreed with it.
Of course if the SNP fail to even match their 2011 majority pre indyref 2014 there is zero chance of Boris even considering a request from Sturgeon for indyref2 and with the SNP on 46.5% already in 2016 and still just short of a majority they have zero room for error.
However even with an SNP majority Boris would likely not risk it either, knowing a Yes vote likely would bring his premiership to an end, it would be too high stakes a risk when he only has 6 Scottish Tory MPs and a majority of 80 in the UK so has little to lose from ignoring Sturgeon and everything to lose from listening to her
I'm not arguing that Johnson changed his mind in 2019. The point I'm making is that, at the time, you were sure he would resign rather than send the letter. You were that sure that he would stick to his pledge. And he didn't resign did he?
Just as he accepted being overruled by Parliament, so he will accept being overruled by the Scottish people at the Holyrood election, should the SNP emerge victorious as suggested by current opinion polls.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
A Unionist respects the 2014 vote, does not appease Nationalists who would demand indyref2, then indyref3 then indyref4 at any point of their choice.
If Labour wish to allow indyref2 before a generation has elapsed since 2014 that would be their choice, hopefully Scots would again say No, if they said Yes however history would record it was under a Labour PM that the UK broke up.
What Philip Thompson thinks is irrelevant, if Scotland did go of course there would be near zero chance of a non Blairite Labour Party ever winning a rUK election again, certainly for any sustained period in power
HYUFD let's ignore for the moment whether anyone is pro or anti independence or pro or anti Brexit, but for the record I will put my bias on the record - pro remain, no strong feelings on independence.
Isn't it the case that a major argument for anti independence would be that Scotland would find itself outside of the EU if it got independence and the only way to ensure it maintained its EU membership was to vote to stay in the Union?
It is also true that Scotland voted strongly to stay in the EU which would indicate that the argument being put forward was a strong one.
Whether intentional or just a consequence of events that argument proved to be completely invalid because we have left the EU. Surely nullifies the referendum immediately. The Scots were sold a complete lie (although probably not intended). They feel rightly cheated. Even a Brexiteer, pro union person surely can see that?
Had the SNP got 60%+ of the vote consistently after the 2016 Leave vote given 62% of Scots voted Remain and had we now gone to No Deal Brexit maybe, as it is the SNP got just 45% last year post the Brexit vote ie no change at all from the 45% Yes vote in 2014 and No Deal Brexit has been avoided
Not "avoided". Grrr.
But ok, I do recognize that despite my best efforts there was much relief at a deal, any deal, even such a thin one.
Question for you though - I'm curious - did you support the decision to grant Sindy1 in 2014?
If so why?
I only supported Sindy1 on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation' vote
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
Far from it, as Madrid has shown in Catalonia illegal referendums held by nationalist governments can be ignored.
In fact Spain has not even granted the Catalans 1 independence referendum as Scotland was granted by the UK in 2014
As we have said before, if you are using Spain as an example of how democracy should work then you have already lost the argument.
The Tory Party's sister party is the PP in Spain and we will follow the example of our Spanish conservative cousins if needed as a last resort, thanks to the PP government actions in 2017 Catalonia remains part of Spain.
Sky News reporting sounds very disappointed no queues at the ports.
The problem isn't queues today it's when the French lorry drivers decide they have a problem with their English counterparts. The French have no reason to temper their free-wheeling methods of getting their own way. They aren't our friends anymore!
You say that like the French have never played silly buggers before...its an annual event that they strike over something, from the air traffic controllers to the lorry drivers, there is always weeks where they down tools.
Well , from their point of view , it's got the average Frenchman better pay and conditions than the average Briton.
And with higher productivity and lower weekly hours than the UK. Where did it all go wrong for the Frenchies?
Averages aren't all.
The way it work is this
- A substantial chunk of french people do much better than average. They are basically un-fireable at work, etc etc. A good friend got a vast 4 bed apartment in a very fashionable part of Paris for next to no rent. As "social housing". His family knew all the right people. He was an oil company executive. - A bigger chunk, who aren't a part of the "thing" are much worse off than in the UK. This is why London is full of middle class French people. They like those job thingies. - At the bottom you have the people of The Districts. Who are in the shit up to their noses.
Absolutely. For a country that like to pretend to itself that it believes in egalite they have some way to go.
Roger only likes to hang around with the well to do and turns his nose up at anyone else, which is why he loves it.
Modern France doesn't just perform better in average salary and workplace condition metrics, but on healthcare, mental illness, family breakdown and many other indicators. Some of these things aren't impossible for Britain to regain, or alien to it, as Eurosceptics imagine ; it shared many of these positive trends and indicators with France and other countries in the second half of the 1960s.
Again - those things are better for the *some*. France simply has a different, and often more extreme divides.
It is interesting, for example, to see how the wine country economy in areas such as Chablis work. Very attractive on the surface. But when you work out where they have put the poor people.....
I strongly suspect that mental health in The Districts around Paris is problematic. Certainly physical health outcomes are.
For a happy and prosperous nation, they seem very unhappy with their lot if the weekly widespread violent yellow vest protests are anything to go by, the constant striking etc...before considering the 100,000s of French who choose to live in London rather than France, and of course the far less reported regular disturbances in the surburbs of major cities.
You don't see that widespread level of public disquiet in Germany or here.
The problem is the very substantial class of those who "have made it" under the existing system. But are very aware of the measures by which they are protected.
Then there is a large chunk off the working and middle class outside that - and their dream is to join the "thing", not tear it down. Hence the violence in the face of attempts to remove the protections.
The more time I spend in France, the more I think that it is the UK with some of the problems turned up to 11 - the extreme stratification of society..... the ENA makes the Oxbridge thing look all encompassing.
Yes even more French Presidents have been to ENA than UK PMs to Oxbridge or US Presidents to Harvard or Yale.
De Gaulle and Sarkozy the only exceptions in recent decades and De Gaulle went to a top military school
It's not just that - the whole top of the French system went there. Civil Service, politics, media, third sector etc etc...
Indeed and almost all of them live in Paris, France is even more centralised and elitist than we are
The savage hatred of "Paris" - meaning the elite - in France, is something to behold.
In rural France, British people are regarded as almost human, in comparison to "Parisians".
I have many friends in France having worked for a French company for 18 years prior to starting consulting. If anyone ever asked you whether you visited France much and you said yes I spend a lot of time in Paris the immediate response was 'Paris is not France'. The was the same response whether it was in Nantes, Reims or Marseille. They really, deeply loathed Parisians.
Yes - the strength of the reaction makes MalcomG sound like a Londonophile.
It's not just here and France. One of my wife's cousins and her family moved to the Maritimes. They were advised to say that they had moved from Ontario rather than Toronto otherwise people would assume that they were arrogant arseholes.
Its the town mouse vs country mouse everywhere. I used to hear it said of Aucklanders when I lived in NZ.
The Americans I met in my 6,000 mile trip around the States last year (two years) weren’t complimentary about DC, either. Far from it.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
Yes, I think it fair to say that from Jan 4th we are engaged in a mass experiment.
I must say that I haven't heard my lifelong Tory Brexit voting mum as upset and angry with the government as she was on the phone this morning after she found out her second dose was cancelled.
To me this has an air of panic about it. Either it's a bad decision or it's justified. If the latter it tells us just how grim things are looking in the short term.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
But if the one dose regime of the Pfizer vaccine proves less effective than the trial data, what will they conclude? That two doses are needed for maximum protection? Or that the vaccine is less effective against the mutant variants that have developed since the trial?
There will be a group who have had 2 Pfizer vaccines for a comparison.
Yes. I'd forgotten. Some have had a 2nd dose after 21 days. Thanks.
And the GP interviewed this morning on R4 said they would ignore government guidance and do all their second vaccinations anyway. I doubt she is the only one.
While listening to Stanley Johnson explaining his attempts to get himself out of this hole of his son's making by applying for a French passport a friend pointed me to an article by his sister Rachel describing her 'experience having a Brazillian'.
It struck me If you went to Central Casting looking for a dysfunctional family would you go for the Addams or the Johnsons?
They've done an excellent job getting it out there.
Small countries and city states should do the distribution job really well.
I'm getting irritated by the lack of near real time data on our scheme. We should be getting daily updates by now broken down by age, region and normalised. The current random updates aren't good enough.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
Yes, I think it fair to say that from Jan 4th we are engaged in a mass experiment.
I must say that I haven't heard my lifelong Tory Brexit voting mum as upset and angry with the government as she was on the phone this morning after she found out her second dose was cancelled.
To me this has an air of panic about it. Either it's a bad decision or it's justified. If the latter it tells us just how grim things are looking in the short term.
I think it is grim I think it is justified
The graphs showing how the new variant takes off, while the old barely moves shows that getting R below 1 with the new variant may not be possible.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
Yes but there is a risk of turning an entirely winnable referendum into an impossible to win one in the future.
Under No Deal indyref2 would likely have been unwinnable for Unionists, under Boris' Deal it is probably 50/50 so not worth the risk, if Labour want to allow one if they win in 2024 maybe with devomax and a softer Brexit Deal that is up to them
You’ve just proved my point.
Your position isn’t a unionist position. It’s a coward’s position.
A unionist would be doing what they can to put forward a positive vision of the union, not meaningless drivel like a cabinet office in Edinburgh. You’ve got nothing at the moment other than project fear. We know what happened with that in the EU referendum.
No it is a realist's position, referendums are notoriously unpredictable as 2016 proved.
Scots made their choice in 2014 in that once in a generation referendum to stay in the UK and they will not be getting another one from this Tory government.
If Labour form a government after 2024 and want to put forward what you call 'a positive vision of the union' and then allow indyref2 that is up to them, there will be no legal indyref2 allowed under the Tories
You really need to step back and listen to yourself.
I’m a unionist. If the Government really supported the union they would be actively making steps preserve it. Not simply treating the Scottish Parliament like children.
Otherwise they will be the reason the Scots eventually vote for independence, not a future Labour government for letting it happen.
In any case, you have to hope that England is not full of people like @Philip_Thompson who aren’t bothered if Scotland goes independent and therefore will not “punish Labour’ for facilitating it.
Boris Johnson is extremely unpopular in Scotland, a fact he understands well. If he refuses a referendum, he will be storing up resentment toward nobody but Boris Johnson. Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak will have considerably more chance of winning, and the delay to the referendum will not influence as many people to vote to leave as Boris Johnson in charge would. You must see that. Why do you think the nats are slavering to have it now, not in 5 years or so?
Nonsense.
If the SNP are the democratically elected choice of the Scots who are then denied self-determination and democracy then that would put the a stake through the heart of unionism.
The Scots would have been treated with contempt and would know that voting No means they could be denied a say again in the future.
It is every bit as "too clever by half" as denying the British public a say in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
Yep this in spades. In fact I would say the only chance the Unionists have of winning an Independence referendum is if Johnson immediately agrees when it is asked for. Even then I think the Scots will vote yes but it may well be as close as the EU referendum was. As soon as he starts refusing that gap will widen dramatically.
I find this extremely naive. Who are these Scots who you think will vote to stay in the UK because 'Gor Blimey Guvnor, that Boris ain't so bad after all - gave us our vote he did!' - I mean really? Having an Indyref now would be the height of economical and constitutional irresponsibility, and their is absolutely no reason for it beyond the SNP's hectoring.
Swing unionist Scots who think they're being treated with respect who would be more likely to go for independence if they're treated with contempt.
If the SNP win the election that isn't hectoring - it is democracy.
You have openly supported Scottish independence anyway, Unionists therefore will take no advice from you.
2014 was a once in a generation vote. Full stop
I think you'll find an overwhelming majority of Tories on this site value democracy - even if it means another referendum.
Most importantly of all Boris and the Cabinet are clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote.
And he famously never changes his mind about anything when under pressure!!
He will not change his mind about risking being the Lord North of the 21st century and nor will his Cabinet
Weren't you certain Johnson would stand by his "die in a ditch" pledge over the Article 50 extension in late 2019?
How did that turn out?
Johnson is more flexible with his commitments. An SNP majority at the Holyrood elections would be enough that he could grant another referendum.
I can understand why he wouldn't want to say so before the Holyrood elections, of course, but we don't need to pretend here.
The scenario where I have some doubt is where there is a Nationalist majority, between the Greens and the SNP, but the SNP alone are short of a majority. That's the situation at present which was enough for May to refuse consent. I suspect that Johnson would do the same.
Boris did not have a majority in 2019, he was impotent, he now has a majority of 80 and is master of all he surveys.
It was Parliament that voted to extend in 2019, Boris merely sent the EU a fax letting him know their decision and that he disagreed with it.
Of course if the SNP fail to even match their 2011 majority pre indyref 2014 there is zero chance of Boris even considering a request from Sturgeon for indyref2 and with the SNP on 46.5% already in 2016 and still just short of a majority they have zero room for error.
However even with an SNP majority Boris would likely not risk it either, knowing a Yes vote likely would bring his premiership to an end, it would be too high stakes a risk when he only has 6 Scottish Tory MPs and a majority of 80 in the UK so has little to lose from ignoring Sturgeon and everything to lose from listening to her
I'm not arguing that Johnson changed his mind in 2019. The point I'm making is that, at the time, you were sure he would resign rather than send the letter. You were that sure that he would stick to his pledge. And he didn't resign did he?
Just as he accepted being overruled by Parliament, so he will accept being overruled by the Scottish people at the Holyrood election, should the SNP emerge victorious as suggested by current opinion polls.
H is very good on Tory thinking but he also misjudged Johnson on No Deal. He thought it probable that he would opt for it because a deal would cause him grief in the party and threaten his position.
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
Eurosceptics spent forty years blaming everything on being in the EU, turning the tables on them will be amusing.
Yes I'm up for it. I was flirting with "moving on" but on reflection that would be taking altruism just slightly too far.
Who's our Farage gonna be?
If you use inability to get elected as a metric, plus preparedness to stand up for a bat-shit crazy cause at which the Establishment will point and laugh - surely, there is only person.
Step forward, your next Prime Minister, Jo Swinson....
The more interesting question is when does Breturn's Boris emerge- the attractive (or superficially attractive) politician who runs with it and makes it happen.
I suspect that they don't know that it's their destiny yet.
They've done an excellent job getting it out there.
Small countries and city states should do the distribution job really well.
I'm getting irritated by the lack of near real time data on our scheme. We should be getting daily updates by now broken down by age, region and normalised. The current random updates aren't good enough.
I'd guess it's because the information is collated manually from hundreds of different local databases. I agree it would be interesting though.
Sky News reporting sounds very disappointed no queues at the ports.
The problem isn't queues today it's when the French lorry drivers decide they have a problem with their English counterparts. The French have no reason to temper their free-wheeling methods of getting their own way. They aren't our friends anymore!
You say that like the French have never played silly buggers before...its an annual event that they strike over something, from the air traffic controllers to the lorry drivers, there is always weeks where they down tools.
Well , from their point of view , it's got the average Frenchman better pay and conditions than the average Briton.
And with higher productivity and lower weekly hours than the UK. Where did it all go wrong for the Frenchies?
Averages aren't all.
The way it work is this
- A substantial chunk of french people do much better than average. They are basically un-fireable at work, etc etc. A good friend got a vast 4 bed apartment in a very fashionable part of Paris for next to no rent. As "social housing". His family knew all the right people. He was an oil company executive. - A bigger chunk, who aren't a part of the "thing" are much worse off than in the UK. This is why London is full of middle class French people. They like those job thingies. - At the bottom you have the people of The Districts. Who are in the shit up to their noses.
Absolutely. For a country that like to pretend to itself that it believes in egalite they have some way to go.
Roger only likes to hang around with the well to do and turns his nose up at anyone else, which is why he loves it.
Modern France doesn't just perform better in average salary and workplace condition metrics, but on healthcare, mental illness, family breakdown and many other indicators. Some of these things aren't impossible for Britain to regain, or alien to it, as Eurosceptics imagine ; it shared many of these positive trends and indicators with France and other countries in the second half of the 1960s.
Again - those things are better for the *some*. France simply has a different, and often more extreme divides.
It is interesting, for example, to see how the wine country economy in areas such as Chablis work. Very attractive on the surface. But when you work out where they have put the poor people.....
I strongly suspect that mental health in The Districts around Paris is problematic. Certainly physical health outcomes are.
For a happy and prosperous nation, they seem very unhappy with their lot if the weekly widespread violent yellow vest protests are anything to go by, the constant striking etc...before considering the 100,000s of French who choose to live in London rather than France, and of course the far less reported regular disturbances in the surburbs of major cities.
You don't see that widespread level of public disquiet in Germany or here.
The problem is the very substantial class of those who "have made it" under the existing system. But are very aware of the measures by which they are protected.
Then there is a large chunk off the working and middle class outside that - and their dream is to join the "thing", not tear it down. Hence the violence in the face of attempts to remove the protections.
The more time I spend in France, the more I think that it is the UK with some of the problems turned up to 11 - the extreme stratification of society..... the ENA makes the Oxbridge thing look all encompassing.
Yes even more French Presidents have been to ENA than UK PMs to Oxbridge or US Presidents to Harvard or Yale.
De Gaulle and Sarkozy the only exceptions in recent decades and De Gaulle went to a top military school
It's not just that - the whole top of the French system went there. Civil Service, politics, media, third sector etc etc...
Indeed and almost all of them live in Paris, France is even more centralised and elitist than we are
The savage hatred of "Paris" - meaning the elite - in France, is something to behold.
In rural France, British people are regarded as almost human, in comparison to "Parisians".
I have many friends in France having worked for a French company for 18 years prior to starting consulting. If anyone ever asked you whether you visited France much and you said yes I spend a lot of time in Paris the immediate response was 'Paris is not France'. The was the same response whether it was in Nantes, Reims or Marseille. They really, deeply loathed Parisians.
Yes - the strength of the reaction makes MalcomG sound like a Londonophile.
It's not just here and France. One of my wife's cousins and her family moved to the Maritimes. They were advised to say that they had moved from Ontario rather than Toronto otherwise people would assume that they were arrogant arseholes.
Its the town mouse vs country mouse everywhere. I used to hear it said of Aucklanders when I lived in NZ.
The Americans I met in my 6,000 mile trip around the States last year (two years) weren’t complimentary about DC, either. Far from it.
In most countries, the rest of the country hates the capital. Talk to Peruvians about Lima.
The French vs Paris thing is really, really out there. Something like 11 out of 10 on the scale, with MalcomG vs London on about 7.....
I’d settle for an organ that was very much engaged in the constitutional debate but also scrupulously even handed, nothing like that exists now. When SLab was in charge, hacks and papers felt relaxed enough to at least attempt this, since 2007 this has evaporated. The decline in the Herald is worst of all.
I believe that Israel has an over 60 policy for vaccinations rather than by 5 year age bands. That must make administration a lot simpler and quicker.
Indeed one good reason for a one dose policy* is that it greatly simplifies logistics and bookings systems. The less time spent on booking follow ups the quicker the teams can book the next cohort.
*I think existing appointments for second doses should be honoured though.
They've done an excellent job getting it out there.
Small countries and city states should do the distribution job really well.
I'm getting irritated by the lack of near real time data on our scheme. We should be getting daily updates by now broken down by age, region and normalised. The current random updates aren't good enough.
I'd guess it's because the information is collated manually from hundreds of different local databases. I agree it would be interesting though.
But they've ages to build a data warehouse for it and a warehousing process to run at every morning. That they haven't is the issue.
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
Eurosceptics spent forty years blaming everything on being in the EU, turning the tables on them will be amusing.
Yes I'm up for it. I was flirting with "moving on" but on reflection that would be taking altruism just slightly too far.
Who's our Farage gonna be?
Andrew Adonis.
Can't be the frontman. Big brain but lacks the common touch. Engine room.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
But if the one dose regime of the Pfizer vaccine proves less effective than the trial data, what will they conclude? That two doses are needed for maximum protection? Or that the vaccine is less effective against the mutant variants that have developed since the trial?
There will be a group who have had 2 Pfizer vaccines for a comparison.
Yes. I'd forgotten. Some have had a 2nd dose after 21 days. Thanks.
And the GP interviewed this morning on R4 said they would ignore government guidance and do all their second vaccinations anyway. I doubt she is the only one.
What do all those yet to get their first vaccination think about that?
Still not a peep here for those > 85. I hope the Oxford vaccine will change that.
Scotland's problem (apart from the football team) is that secessionist movements tend to be fissile over the long term. The steam has gone out of many seperatist movements (Vlaams, Quebec, Catalonia, Basque) due to splits and internal conflict. You can see signs of this in the SNP already.
So it has to be now. A general strike, or even the threat of it, will be enough to make Le Bossu fold on #indyref2.
No it wouldn't, Boris has a majority of 80 but only 6 Scottish Tory MPs, he can afford to ignore Sturgeon and Blackford even if the SNP win a majority next year.
Starmer however if he comes to power in 2024 after a hung parliament and reliant on support from SNP MPs is another matter
You are like a Trumpist trying to reverse the Presidential election.
Conservatives may be unionists primarily, but they are also first and foremost largely democrats.
I don't know what will happen next if the Scots do give a majority to the SNP but I'm hopeful democracy will prevail as it did last time.
Knowing what you stand for is important. Accepting that you have lost an election is even more important.
We are the 'Conservative and Unionist Party' the clue is in the title, Sturgeon will not be getting any indyref2 from us no matter how hard she bleats, we respect the once in a generation 2014 vote.
Yes we are the Conservative and Unionist Party which is why if we win the Scottish election then there will be no further referendum. A vote for Scottish Tories is a vote against a referendum.
If we lose the election though then democracy means the election winners decide what happens next. That is democracy.
The SNP running on a cause (another referendum) which is beyond their gift is like council candidates suggesting that if they were elected, they'd scrap trident. Farcical.
There speaks a numpty who knows nothing of democracy, a carbon copy of the odious Johnson, a nasty piece of work to be pitied, a souless pompous ass. Woe betide anyone who got him on his shoe.
They've done an excellent job getting it out there.
Small countries and city states should do the distribution job really well.
I'm getting irritated by the lack of near real time data on our scheme. We should be getting daily updates by now broken down by age, region and normalised. The current random updates aren't good enough.
I'd guess it's because the information is collated manually from hundreds of different local databases. I agree it would be interesting though.
But they've ages to build a data warehouse for it and a warehousing process to run at every morning. That they haven't is the issue.
We could be generous and assume they have that information internally. It just hasn't been provided to the intern running the public site.
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
Eurosceptics spent forty years blaming everything on being in the EU, turning the tables on them will be amusing.
Yes I'm up for it. I was flirting with "moving on" but on reflection that would be taking altruism just slightly too far.
Who's our Farage gonna be?
If you use inability to get elected as a metric, plus preparedness to stand up for a bat-shit crazy cause at which the Establishment will point and laugh - surely, there is only person.
Step forward, your next Prime Minister, Jo Swinson....
And the GP interviewed this morning on R4 said they would ignore government guidance and do all their second vaccinations anyway. I doubt she is the only one.
But, there is a lot of scientific research on whether it is better to give more people a single dose as opposed to fewer people a double dose (not in the context of COVID specifically, but infectious disease generally).
The answer depends on the transmissibility of the disease, the lag between vaccinations, the efficacy of a single dose versus a double and the prevailing R value.
On this, I think the Govt (& Tony Blair) are almost certainly right. You save many more people by giving single jabs.
In fact, given where we are in the pandemic, I expect it is not even close.
The Govt and Tony Blair are overwhelmingly correct. (Not a sentence you expect to use often)
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
Eurosceptics spent forty years blaming everything on being in the EU, turning the tables on them will be amusing.
Yes I'm up for it. I was flirting with "moving on" but on reflection that would be taking altruism just slightly too far.
Who's our Farage gonna be?
Andrew Adonis.
Can't be the frontman. Big brain but lacks the common touch. Engine room.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
Yes, I think it fair to say that from Jan 4th we are engaged in a mass experiment.
I must say that I haven't heard my lifelong Tory Brexit voting mum as upset and angry with the government as she was on the phone this morning after she found out her second dose was cancelled.
To me this has an air of panic about it. Either it's a bad decision or it's justified. If the latter it tells us just how grim things are looking in the short term.
I think it is grim I think it is justified
The graphs showing how the new variant takes off, while the old barely moves shows that getting R below 1 with the new variant may not be possible.
Think about that....
It must be possible to control the new variant, but it might take a very severe lockdown. I suspect that's where we are headed.
24hr vaccinations are the only answer without welding people in, provided there is enough supply.
Is Sturgeon being serioua here or is she just playing up to her crowd?
As independent Ireland takes up her seat on the @UN Security Council today, not (yet) independent Scotland is taken out of the EU against our will. Time to put ourselves in the driving seat of our own future, Scotland #indyref2
She'll be playing to those 2014 No voters in that focus group that you were so entranced with.
You seem to have a good memory..
I just recalled a focus group which I posted as a link, predominately around some of those No voters being unaware of the implications of currency. I linked it once in fact - so what's the problem?
Aren't you meant to be winning over No voters?
You posted it as an example of 'Nats' being unaware of the implications of currency, so jog on with the rewriting guff.
Afaik you're not a once and future voter in Scotland, No or otherwise, so I don't need to win you over to anything.
A Troll TUD and not bright enough to be subtle about it. Likely one of those knobs from Brigade 77.
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
Eurosceptics spent forty years blaming everything on being in the EU, turning the tables on them will be amusing.
Yes I'm up for it. I was flirting with "moving on" but on reflection that would be taking altruism just slightly too far.
Who's our Farage gonna be?
Andrew Adonis.
Whether meant seriously or not, this is actually not that implausible. Now considered a crank and obsessive by many on the right, as Farage was on the left, a relentless and tireless campaigner, also with a personal family link to Oldest Europe.
His calm and cerebral aspect may also appeal to a core Remainer professional constituency over the years, like Farage's beer, fags and country shirts schtick appealed to rural and ex-industrial England.
They've done an excellent job getting it out there.
Small countries and city states should do the distribution job really well.
I'm getting irritated by the lack of near real time data on our scheme. We should be getting daily updates by now broken down by age, region and normalised. The current random updates aren't good enough.
I'd guess it's because the information is collated manually from hundreds of different local databases. I agree it would be interesting though.
But they've ages to build a data warehouse for it and a warehousing process to run at every morning. That they haven't is the issue.
We could be generous and assume they have that information internally. It just hasn't been provided to the intern running the public site.
Some of us did point out that Nadheem Zahawi was a terrible choice to be vaccines minister.
They've done an excellent job getting it out there.
Small countries and city states should do the distribution job really well.
I'm getting irritated by the lack of near real time data on our scheme. We should be getting daily updates by now broken down by age, region and normalised. The current random updates aren't good enough.
I'd guess it's because the information is collated manually from hundreds of different local databases. I agree it would be interesting though.
But they've ages to build a data warehouse for it and a warehousing process to run at every morning. That they haven't is the issue.
We could be generous and assume they have that information internally. It just hasn't been provided to the intern running the public site.
Some of us did point out that Nadheem Zahawi was a terrible choice to be vaccines minister.
This stuff should have be organised weeks ago.
Meh, on the list of priorities it should be very close to the bottom. It's only of interest to stats nerds like us.
And the GP interviewed this morning on R4 said they would ignore government guidance and do all their second vaccinations anyway. I doubt she is the only one.
But, there is a lot of scientific research on whether it is better to give more people a single dose as opposed to fewer people a double dose (not in the context of COVID specifically, but infectious disease generally).
The answer depends on the transmissibility of the disease, the lag between vaccinations, the efficacy of a single dose versus a double and the prevailing R value.
On this, I think the Govt (& Tony Blair) are almost certainly right. You save many more people by giving single jabs.
In fact, given where we are in the pandemic, I expect it is not even close.
The Govt and Tony Blair are overwhelmingly correct. (Not a sentence you expect to use often)
I agree. And the doctor put up in opposition to her was scathing, by R4 standards, in his criticism of her position. Accused her of killing people. Her position was that (apparently) the government instructions leave them some clinical discretion, and she wanted to keep promises already made to first jab patients.
Does someone please have a copy of the Pfizer chart that shows the almost flat-line stop in cases in the vaccine group as compared to the control group from day 10 onwards please?
I would like to show it to a friend who is skeptical about the vaccine if there's only one dose.
That graph shows that new cases of Covid reach an almost flat line stop after 14 days. All of the effect from 14-21 days can be attributed to the 1st vaccine. But then a 2nd dose was given at day 21. What would the graph look like after day 21 if the 2nd dose hadn't been given at day 21? According to Pfizer we just don't know. "There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days."
Yes, it is only the small inset graph that applies to a single dose regime. We simply don't know what the shape would be without. Flat or a resumed rise?
Am I right in thinking that the NHS is monitoring what happens now similar to a Phase IV trial so we will find this out relatively soon?
I'm guessing we'll be able to give data to the rest of the world? Or does it not work that way?
Yes, I think it fair to say that from Jan 4th we are engaged in a mass experiment.
I must say that I haven't heard my lifelong Tory Brexit voting mum as upset and angry with the government as she was on the phone this morning after she found out her second dose was cancelled.
To me this has an air of panic about it. Either it's a bad decision or it's justified. If the latter it tells us just how grim things are looking in the short term.
I think it is grim I think it is justified
The graphs showing how the new variant takes off, while the old barely moves shows that getting R below 1 with the new variant may not be possible.
Think about that....
It must be possible to control the new variant, but it might take a very severe lockdown. I suspect that's where we are headed.
24hr vaccinations are the only answer without welding people in, provided there is enough supply.
The numbers suggest that a complete lockdown - such as March - wouldn't be enough.....
They've done an excellent job getting it out there.
Small countries and city states should do the distribution job really well.
I'm getting irritated by the lack of near real time data on our scheme. We should be getting daily updates by now broken down by age, region and normalised. The current random updates aren't good enough.
I'd guess it's because the information is collated manually from hundreds of different local databases. I agree it would be interesting though.
But they've ages to build a data warehouse for it and a warehousing process to run at every morning. That they haven't is the issue.
We could be generous and assume they have that information internally. It just hasn't been provided to the intern running the public site.
Some of us did point out that Nadheem Zahawi was a terrible choice to be vaccines minister.
This stuff should have be organised weeks ago.
The number of people being vaccinated is pretty close to the number of doses available. Which doesn't suggest that on the actual stabbing-people-bit things aren't working.
A daily update on numbers might be nice - but is that really important?
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
Eurosceptics spent forty years blaming everything on being in the EU, turning the tables on them will be amusing.
Yes I'm up for it. I was flirting with "moving on" but on reflection that would be taking altruism just slightly too far.
Who's our Farage gonna be?
Andrew Adonis.
Whether meant seriously or not, this is actually not that implausible. Now considered a crank and obsessive by many on the right, as Farage was on the left, a relentless and tireless campaigner, also with a personal family link to Oldest Europe.
His calm and cerebral aspect may also appeal to a core Remainer professional constituency over the years, like Farage's beer, fags and country shirts schtick appealed to rural and ex-industrial England.
My nomination is Clive Lewis. Although possibly too left wing for some. He has the plus of being pro electoral reform too.
To our SNP friends can I say as a conservative and very pro the union through my marriage to a Scot that I utterly reject the havering of HYUFD and hope you recognise we are not all stupid enough to not accept that indyref2 is likely in the next few years and I am happy to debate the pros and cons at the time as we will be in a very different place than on the first day we have left the EU
All the talk of an indyref in the neat future seems to be ignoring the critical factor; referendums are binary, you win or lose. A 50.01% result is just as good as 99%.
There's nothing to be gained by Boris granting a referenum that, going by the polling numbers, he would narrowly lose. Refusing to grant section 30 powers again may increase support for independece, but if it does he's no worse off than now. But is also gives time for events to rescue the union - widending splits in the indy movement, the Salmond case bringing down Sturgeon, etc.
You don't have to HYUFD to see logic in just saying no.
HYUFD strikes me as someone about to be put on the Tory PPC list. I am sure he is closer to Tory thinking (if I may use the two words together) than anyone else on this blog. So, I am certain Boris will say no.
First, Boris is very likely to lose any referendum called soon -- so, for sure, he will leave it & hope either that something turns up or that it eventually becomes someone else's problem (Rishi 's or SKS's).
Second, it gives him a huge stick with which to clobber SKS in the next General Election. He can raise the spectre of a weak Labour party forced to deal with the SNP to defenestrate the Tories & enter Government.
So, for Boris, there are zero advantages in saying yes, and plenty of advantages in saying no.
And Boris is mainly concerned about Boris ....
I would agree, but in addition we know Johnson is a procrastinator. He will delay as long as possible.
And he might start off saying No but then eventually cave if things get intense.
This is why I prefer to lay a 2022 Sindy at 4.8 than back a no Sindy by 1st Jan 2025 at 2.1.
A compromise solution would be to pledge to put it in the Conservatives' next manifesto to hold one by the end of the next parliament if they win. Not sure how I feel about it, but it would assuage some whilst avoiding plunging the country in to an immediate constitutional referendum quite so soon after Brexit.
Garbage, it is for the people of Scotland to decide , not some arse in London.
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
I can foresee a pattern from some people...everything bad is because of Brexit, anything good will be well if we were still in the EU, we could have made the EU change course to this position anyway.
Eurosceptics spent forty years blaming everything on being in the EU, turning the tables on them will be amusing.
Yes I'm up for it. I was flirting with "moving on" but on reflection that would be taking altruism just slightly too far.
Who's our Farage gonna be?
If you use inability to get elected as a metric, plus preparedness to stand up for a bat-shit crazy cause at which the Establishment will point and laugh - surely, there is only person.
Step forward, your next Prime Minister, Jo Swinson....
Ha. Mais non. Our search goes on.
Think about it in terms of going up Barnier's staircase. There are four hurdles I can see;
The first is accepting that, in some "specific and limited" contexts, the ECJ is the appropriate Supreme Court.
The second is that Europe-wide trade deals, whilst they may not be a perfect fit, are more useful than the ones the UK can negotiate alone.
The third is that EEA membership is, overall, worth it. Freedom of movement and membership costs included.
The final one is that, if we're that integrated, we might as well take part in the politics.
It's going to be a slow process, and something of a relay. Unfortunately. Each step (for all I agree with them) might need different people.
Don't get me wrong. I think Hutton and the other Europhiles are absolutely right to fight for what they believe in and said myself that the day after we left (January 31st) you would not see me arguing it was not right for them to start a campaign to rejoin. I just think they are living in cloud cuckoo land believing it will be in his or my lifetime.
They've done an excellent job getting it out there.
Small countries and city states should do the distribution job really well.
I'm getting irritated by the lack of near real time data on our scheme. We should be getting daily updates by now broken down by age, region and normalised. The current random updates aren't good enough.
I'd guess it's because the information is collated manually from hundreds of different local databases. I agree it would be interesting though.
But they've ages to build a data warehouse for it and a warehousing process to run at every morning. That they haven't is the issue.
We could be generous and assume they have that information internally. It just hasn't been provided to the intern running the public site.
Some of us did point out that Nadheem Zahawi was a terrible choice to be vaccines minister.
This stuff should have be organised weeks ago.
Nah, this isn't a ministerial level decision, it's about someone in PHE or the Cabinet Office getting their shit together and writing a warehousing process and data connector for the daily dashboard. The minister won't be getting anywhere near it. It's just the civil service being slow and unimaginative as usual.
If Scotland voted to stay in the UK in a 2nd IndyRef after everything that has happened with Brexit then that will put the issue to bed for a long time. I think it's deluded to suggest that there will be a further 3rd and 4th referendum.
The best policy for Unionists is to finish what Blair started and failed to finish: give Scotland a final and sustainable long-term devolution settlement, just as @Gardenwalker suggests. Then have a IndyRef.
If a future Labour government wishes to do that fine, this Tory government respects the once in a generation 2014 vote
What is your source for "once in a generation"?
The fool has no source
... you earlier replied to his comment where he gave the source.
They've done an excellent job getting it out there.
Small countries and city states should do the distribution job really well.
I'm getting irritated by the lack of near real time data on our scheme. We should be getting daily updates by now broken down by age, region and normalised. The current random updates aren't good enough.
I'd guess it's because the information is collated manually from hundreds of different local databases. I agree it would be interesting though.
But they've ages to build a data warehouse for it and a warehousing process to run at every morning. That they haven't is the issue.
We could be generous and assume they have that information internally. It just hasn't been provided to the intern running the public site.
Some of us did point out that Nadheem Zahawi was a terrible choice to be vaccines minister.
This stuff should have be organised weeks ago.
The number of people being vaccinated is pretty close to the number of doses available. Which doesn't suggest that on the actual stabbing-people-bit things aren't working.
A daily update on numbers might be nice - but is that really important?
If we’re confident that delivered vaccine is used all we need are the delivery figures on a regular basis, overall the news on availability is not good and points to the government over promising again.
And the GP interviewed this morning on R4 said they would ignore government guidance and do all their second vaccinations anyway. I doubt she is the only one.
But, there is a lot of scientific research on whether it is better to give more people a single dose as opposed to fewer people a double dose (not in the context of COVID specifically, but infectious disease generally).
The answer depends on the transmissibility of the disease, the lag between vaccinations, the efficacy of a single dose versus a double and the prevailing R value.
On this, I think the Govt (& Tony Blair) are almost certainly right. You save many more people by giving single jabs.
In fact, given where we are in the pandemic, I expect it is not even close.
The Govt and Tony Blair are overwhelmingly correct. (Not a sentence you expect to use often)
I agree. And the doctor put up in opposition to her was scathing, by R4 standards, in his criticism of her position. Accused her of killing people. Her position was that (apparently) the government instructions leave them some clinical discretion, and she wanted to keep promises already made to first jab patients.
Given the frequency of serious medical appointments that have been cancelled for my mother-in-law - without the consent of her consultant! - in non-COVID times... I have to laugh at the idea that the second jab appointment is a sacred one.
They've done an excellent job getting it out there.
Small countries and city states should do the distribution job really well.
I'm getting irritated by the lack of near real time data on our scheme. We should be getting daily updates by now broken down by age, region and normalised. The current random updates aren't good enough.
I'd guess it's because the information is collated manually from hundreds of different local databases. I agree it would be interesting though.
But they've ages to build a data warehouse for it and a warehousing process to run at every morning. That they haven't is the issue.
We could be generous and assume they have that information internally. It just hasn't been provided to the intern running the public site.
Some of us did point out that Nadheem Zahawi was a terrible choice to be vaccines minister.
This stuff should have be organised weeks ago.
The number of people being vaccinated is pretty close to the number of doses available. Which doesn't suggest that on the actual stabbing-people-bit things aren't working.
A daily update on numbers might be nice - but is that really important?
If we’re confident that delivered vaccine is used all we need are the delivery figures on a regular basis, overall the news on availability is not good and points to the government over promising again.
In this case it's the vaccine companies that are over-promising.
While listening to Stanley Johnson explaining his attempts to get himself out of this hole of his son's making by applying for a French passport a friend pointed me to an article by his sister Rachel describing her 'experience having a Brazillian'.
It struck me If you went to Central Casting looking for a dysfunctional family would you go for the Addams or the Johnsons?
The Sunday Times recently had a review of a biography of Boris.
IIRC one quote was that Boris was 'the classic child of the battered mother'.
Comments
https://twitter.com/dgurdasani1/status/1344774564593725445
https://twitter.com/dgurdasani1/status/1344774566439235586
https://twitter.com/dgurdasani1/status/1344774583988215814
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661
Who's our Farage gonna be?
The truth hurts my friend.
Ventilation is much less used now, CPAP and high flow oxygen has reduced the need, though about 10% of Covid-19 patients still need ventilation.
The main problem is personnel. In the email yesterday the Royal London said that they were stretching ICU nurses to 1 for 3 patients. The usual is 1 to 1 for category 3 (ventilated patients). Ventilated patients are very unwell in other complex ways.
Rather like the Battle of Britain, the bigger threat to the defence was pilot losses than planes.
Drakeford Watch
"Comparisons are naturally being made on the number of vaccinations administered by the four nations of the UK," he said in a ministerial statement to Senedd members."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55505666
The comparisons predictably enough are not to Drakeford's advantage.
Zero change from the 45% of Scots who voted for independence in the 2014 referendum
Westminster needs to get ahead of this. Now ideally.
How did that turn out?
Johnson is more flexible with his commitments. An SNP majority at the Holyrood elections would be enough that he could grant another referendum.
I can understand why he wouldn't want to say so before the Holyrood elections, of course, but we don't need to pretend here.
The scenario where I have some doubt is where there is a Nationalist majority, between the Greens and the SNP, but the SNP alone are short of a majority. That's the situation at present which was enough for May to refuse consent. I suspect that Johnson would do the same.
A pal stayed in Dakota Glasgow and said it was pretty good, very central. The Kimpton Blythswood Square looks pretty swish. Blythswood Sq apparently used to be the haunt of ‘commercial’ ladies but I’m sure that’s no longer the case..
https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1343611393879252996?s=09
It was Parliament that voted to extend in 2019, Boris merely sent the EU a fax letting him know their decision and that he disagreed with it.
Of course if the SNP fail to even match their 2011 majority pre indyref 2014 there is zero chance of Boris even considering a request from Sturgeon for indyref2 and with the SNP on 46.5% already in 2016 and still just short of a majority they have zero room for error.
However even with an SNP majority Boris would likely not risk it either, knowing a Yes vote likely would bring his premiership to an end, it would be too high stakes a risk when he only has 6 Scottish Tory MPs and a majority of 80 in the UK so has little to lose from ignoring Sturgeon and everything to lose from listening to her
Losers manifestos don't count.
It is the winners "Vote No to keep Scotland in the EU" that counts.
Step forward, your next Prime Minister, Jo Swinson....
But ok, I do recognize that despite my best efforts there was much relief at a deal, any deal, even such a thin one.
Question for you though - I'm curious - did you support the decision to grant Sindy1 in 2014?
If so why?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britains-economy-is-healthier-than-it-looks-3lvrtp7zg
No comment from the Guardian about the UK successfully avoiding this scheme?
Yet just 45% voted SNP and 1% voted Green in 2019 ie 46% combined and just 1% up on the 45% who voted Yes in 2014, so as far as I am concerned tough
Sold for £10 million. In 2005 it was £160 million! Scotland needs proper journalism or it's all for nothing.
A scrutinising chamber would be nice too.
That's my wish-list for a devolved or independent Scotland.
Also, I don't think the 2019 Westminster elections are the right assessment. The Scottish Greens will poll a lot higher at Holyrood.
If you are so confident that only 45% support independence then why not have a referendum?
It means that the UK records a steeper fall but also a faster recovery. We already saw evidence of this in the June to August period where three month growth was really high as the state caught up with healthcare output. I expect this current period will again be very negative but as we ramp up vaccinations, clear hospitals and get schools operating normally public sector output will rebound almost totally.
Just as he accepted being overruled by Parliament, so he will accept being overruled by the Scottish people at the Holyrood election, should the SNP emerge victorious as suggested by current opinion polls.
You’d think after all that practice that they’d better at the old tunes, but no..
A song that still grabs me every time I hear it
I fear that France is going to be into lockdown 7 or 8 while the UK and Germany will be unlocking towards the end of April.
It struck me If you went to Central Casting looking for a dysfunctional family would you go for the Addams or the Johnsons?
I'm getting irritated by the lack of near real time data on our scheme. We should be getting daily updates by now broken down by age, region and normalised. The current random updates aren't good enough.
I think it is justified
The graphs showing how the new variant takes off, while the old barely moves shows that getting R below 1 with the new variant may not be possible.
Think about that....
I suspect that they don't know that it's their destiny yet.
The French vs Paris thing is really, really out there. Something like 11 out of 10 on the scale, with MalcomG vs London on about 7.....
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1344974412030869507?s=21
I’d settle for an organ that was very much engaged in the constitutional debate but also scrupulously even handed, nothing like that exists now. When SLab was in charge, hacks and papers felt relaxed enough to at least attempt this, since 2007 this has evaporated. The decline in the Herald is worst of all.
Indeed one good reason for a one dose policy* is that it greatly simplifies logistics and bookings systems. The less time spent on booking follow ups the quicker the teams can book the next cohort.
*I think existing appointments for second doses should be honoured though.
Still not a peep here for those > 85. I hope the Oxford vaccine will change that.
The answer depends on the transmissibility of the disease, the lag between vaccinations, the efficacy of a single dose versus a double and the prevailing R value.
On this, I think the Govt (& Tony Blair) are almost certainly right. You save many more people by giving single jabs.
In fact, given where we are in the pandemic, I expect it is not even close.
The Govt and Tony Blair are overwhelmingly correct. (Not a sentence you expect to use often)
24hr vaccinations are the only answer without welding people in, provided there is enough supply.
His calm and cerebral aspect may also appeal to a core Remainer professional constituency over the years, like Farage's beer, fags and country shirts schtick appealed to rural and ex-industrial England.
This stuff should have be organised weeks ago.
A daily update on numbers might be nice - but is that really important?
The first is accepting that, in some "specific and limited" contexts, the ECJ is the appropriate Supreme Court.
The second is that Europe-wide trade deals, whilst they may not be a perfect fit, are more useful than the ones the UK can negotiate alone.
The third is that EEA membership is, overall, worth it. Freedom of movement and membership costs included.
The final one is that, if we're that integrated, we might as well take part in the politics.
It's going to be a slow process, and something of a relay. Unfortunately. Each step (for all I agree with them) might need different people.
IIRC one quote was that Boris was 'the classic child of the battered mother'.