As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
There is a tonne of research on this, because there are other vaccines for which you administer two doses.
Blair is correct, although any moderately intelligent politician would have realised this.
But, our political class as a whole cannot do arithmetic. And it seems the European political class can't, as well.
Blair is having a better pandemic than the PM, the FMs and the LotO.
It’s possible his intervention was unhelpful, though, so unwilling are people to listen to him these days. A self created Cassandra.
The somewhat messy AZN trials also seemed to bear out the greater efficacy of the longer gap between shots for their vaccine. Though as pointed out, it’s hard to do such stuff both quickly and well, so the data is less than conclusive.
My only issue was Blair made the suggestion himself, rather than saying there are experts who think we can save more lives by doing x, the government should be looking into alternative strategies.
Personally I don't understand why all the first jabs aren't going to frontline NHS staff. The 80+ olds who are getting the jab as we speak should be told to shield at home until the NHS has been done. The hospital crisis seems to be mainly about staffing with too many self isolating.
Maybe I have missed something here?
I strongly agree. It would be interesting to know how the priority list was arrived at.
I suspect it is because the people drawing up the vaccine priority list were largely doctors or public health officials, and they daren't put themselves at highest priority.
We could just imagine the media uproar if a bunch of doctors decided they are top priority.
In fact, almost all the media have had a truly disgraceful pandemic. I am becoming a fan of China's law against "picking quarrels and making trouble".
My understanding is that it was based on those most likely to die of the disease. If you are an 80- year old in a nursing home then catching the disease is far more of a risk than if you are a 40 year old nurse. Yes there is still a risk to the nurse but the calculation seems to be that the most important thing is stopping people dying.
Does that mean they aren’t confident that vaccine reduces transmission? I don’t think anyone is suggesting that frontline staff should be vaccinated for their own sake - though that’s a nice bonus - it’s more that we want to stop it spreading in care settings.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Boris made clear this morning 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no independence referendum should be granted for 40 years at the earliest with no qualification on that.
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
And you believe Boris
Yes, he wants to stay UK PM and has no desire to be a 21st century Lord North and lose Scotland
Your way makes it certain
This is a bit of an odd argument. Unionists who want a referendum now are in the position of a man who likes his head in one piece arguing for an immediate game of Russian roulette in which he knows in advance that half the chambers are full.
Would you play such a game? I wouldn't.
I do not want a referendum. I will vote against it by voting for a Unionist party opposed to it. I may well even campaign for them if Covid allows.
But I see the risk of allowing the SNP to build up a head of indignation by refusing to accept the view of the Scottish people if a majority, however misguided, vote for a second referendum. It would be stupid and make the job of those fighting for the Union, such as me, more difficult.
As someone who believes the UK is better off preserving the Union but whose principles are neo-libertarian with maximalist subsidiarity (and hence who supported Brexit), I was appalled at the Spanish government's response to the Catalan crisis and I'd be vehemently opposed to its application in the Scottish independence context.
As civilized people, we have to be able to respect the will of the people, even when that will is not what we think is best. If I supported Brexit, I have to support whatever the Scottish people want re independence, even though I'd greatly regret their departure from the UK.
I did not support Brexit either, though I respect the Leave vote but Brexit only occurred in a referendum 41 years after the 1975 EEC referendum ie a full generation
When HYUFD is finally selected as PPC for the Tory interest in the safe Essex seat of Riddle-by-the-Diddle, then your opponents will trawl through your 80,709 posts.
The Tories should have re-taken Gower in 2019. They didn't. Why? Someone looked up the social media profile of the Tory candidate.
Gower is in Wales which voted Leave just like England, the Tories have a majority of 80 UK wide and just 6 seats in Scotland and most of those 6 are filled with diehard Unionists like me
Are you so blind and programmed not to see the point was not about Wales voting leave, but that your posts may come back to haunt you in a big way should you wish to stand for office
Be fair to HYUFD, he is consistent: 1. No won the referendum 2. There will be no other referendum 3. If Scotland doesn't like it Scotland can be crushed into submission 4. Vote Tory
I did not actually say 2, I agree with Boris this morning that a second referendum in about 2055 would be allowed ie a 41 year gap as between the 1975 EEC referendum and the 2016 EU referendum
But you don’t say it like that.
You say that we will campaign against a referendum, but if the Scottish Parliament votes for one then of course the U.K. Parliament will have to consider it.
You then have a vote in Parliament, which gets voted down 550-80 or thereabouts, and can park the issue for a while.
That’s completely truthful, but also polite a process-driven, rather than needlessly antagonistic.
So say an SNP majority is elected to Holyrood in May, Westminster overwhelmingly rejects indyref2 when Sturgeon asks for it and you expect SNP hardliners to meekly accept that and shut up?
When HYUFD is finally selected as PPC for the Tory interest in the safe Essex seat of Riddle-by-the-Diddle, then your opponents will trawl through your 80,709 posts.
The Tories should have re-taken Gower in 2019. They didn't. Why? Someone looked up the social media profile of the Tory candidate.
Gower is in Wales which voted Leave just like England, the Tories have a majority of 80 UK wide and just 6 seats in Scotland and most of those 6 are filled with diehard Unionists like me
Again you are missing the point being made.
How are you going react as the Tory candidate when stuff is printing saying you proposed nuking Madrid or send tanks to Edinburgh. Especially when taken out of context it will make you look like a loon. We know you aren't, but Joe Blogs isn't going to.
If you check my posts I never once said nuke Madrid, that was LadyG, I merely pointed out the necessary measures that would be needed to defend Gibraltar in the event of a hypothetical, even if unlikely Spanish invasion, nothing unTory there.
I also have not once said send tanks to Edinburgh, merely not allow indyref2 for a generation
I did say 'taken out of context' and I certainly remember you saying parachuting the SAS into Gibraltar and you have certainly pointed out that we are a nuclear nation and Spain isn't and you have talked about troops in Scotland. I'm sorry but it is a hostage to fortune. I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure an opponent could have a lot of fun and games extrapolating and you would not have a leg to stand on in a libel action.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Have you thought of the impact in the rest of the UK if this all blows up. Ignoring NI which has its own issues on which country it would like to be a member of, the rest of us are mainly made up of people who are either pro-Union or who don't give a toss one way or another (I am in that latter category). A lot of the 'don't give a toss', might suddenly give a toss if Boris is heavy handed. I have do desire to see us putting the boot into Scotland against their will.
As an aside what are the chances of me getting an EU passport as the spouse of a Scot who left several decades ago if Scotland join the EU?
You may but as I believe you did not vote Tory last year and Boris has a Tory majority of 80 what you think is irrelevant until at least 2024 and the next general election
You keep repeating this line but the problem you have is that the majority of people didn't vote Tory either. And you don't need to drive away many of those who did with your hardline, dictatorial views on Scotland to find that you no longer have an 80 seat majority - or indeed any majority at all.
You might think being mean to our friends and neighbours in Scotland is a winning strategy but I can assure you it isn't.
Be fair to HYUFD, he is consistent: 1. No won the referendum 2. There will be no other referendum 3. If Scotland doesn't like it Scotland can be crushed into submission 4. Vote Tory
I did not actually say 2, I agree with Boris this morning that a second referendum in about 2055 would be allowed ie a 41 year gap as between the 1975 EEC referendum and the 2016 EU referendum
But you don’t say it like that.
You say that we will campaign against a referendum, but if the Scottish Parliament votes for one then of course the U.K. Parliament will have to consider it.
You then have a vote in Parliament, which gets voted down 550-80 or thereabouts, and can park the issue for a while.
That’s completely truthful, but also polite a process-driven, rather than needlessly antagonistic.
So Holyrood gets an SNP majority, Westminster overwhelmingly rejects it and you expect SNP hardliners to meekly accept that and shut up?
I’m saying that Westminster as a whole rejects it with a formal vote, rather than the PM personally telling Nippy to go f*** herself.
One of these processes likely causes a civil war among the nationalists, the other likely causes them to band together behind their leader.
When HYUFD is finally selected as PPC for the Tory interest in the safe Essex seat of Riddle-by-the-Diddle, then your opponents will trawl through your 80,709 posts.
The Tories should have re-taken Gower in 2019. They didn't. Why? Someone looked up the social media profile of the Tory candidate.
Gower is in Wales which voted Leave just like England, the Tories have a majority of 80 UK wide and just 6 seats in Scotland and most of those 6 are filled with diehard Unionists like me
When posts of the Tory candidate were uncovered saying people on benefits should be put down, she lost.
Your posts are falling into that category.
No, as I have never once said that, in fact I support untimelimited benefits provided you look for work.
Dealing with possible last resort options to preserve the Union if SNP hardliners held an illegal independence referendum and declared UDI is nothing like the same and I would be astonished if the Cabinet have also not already run through similar scenarios
When HYUFD is finally selected as PPC for the Tory interest in the safe Essex seat of Riddle-by-the-Diddle, then your opponents will trawl through your 80,709 posts.
The Tories should have re-taken Gower in 2019. They didn't. Why? Someone looked up the social media profile of the Tory candidate.
Gower is in Wales which voted Leave just like England, the Tories have a majority of 80 UK wide and just 6 seats in Scotland and most of those 6 are filled with diehard Unionists like me
Are you so blind and programmed not to see the point was not about Wales voting leave, but that your posts may come back to haunt you in a big way should you wish to stand for office
No, as I have never once said that, in fact I support untimelimited benefits provided you look for work.
Dealing with possible last resort options to preserve the Union if SNP hardliners held an illegal independence referendum and declared UDI is nothing like the same
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Indeed. My Mum had her fist jab this morning but speaking to her she is very clear that it doesn't change anything for her in terms of isolating.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Boris made clear this morning 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no independence referendum should be granted for 40 years at the earliest with no qualification on that.
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
And you believe Boris
Yes, he wants to stay UK PM and has no desire to be a 21st century Lord North and lose Scotland
Your way makes it certain
This is a bit of an odd argument. Unionists who want a referendum now are in the position of a man who likes his head in one piece arguing for an immediate game of Russian roulette in which he knows in advance that half the chambers are full.
Would you play such a game? I wouldn't.
Where have I said now
I do not expect indyref2 before late 2022 or even 2023 not least because a majority across the HOC would need to agree to one and that needs both main parties approval or at the very least a successful free vote. It then has to pass the HOL
Of course I want Boris or his successor to promote investment into Scotland including the building of Royal Navy ships, also freeports and to join TCPA to further expand export opportunities for all the UK
HMG has to demonstrate the value of the union and not threaten them with military intervention as HYUFD seems to want
Unfortunately, that's not the way Johnson's Conservative Party sees the world.
The idea that Boris Johnson's wants aren't the only factor in any calculation- whether it's Covid (he wants infections to fall while schools remain open), the Union (he doesn't want Scotland to go its own way) or Brexit (he still wants cake and eat it)- simply doesn't occur to him.
When HYUFD is finally selected as PPC for the Tory interest in the safe Essex seat of Riddle-by-the-Diddle, then your opponents will trawl through your 80,709 posts.
The Tories should have re-taken Gower in 2019. They didn't. Why? Someone looked up the social media profile of the Tory candidate.
Gower is in Wales which voted Leave just like England, the Tories have a majority of 80 UK wide and just 6 seats in Scotland and most of those 6 are filled with diehard Unionists like me
Are you so blind and programmed not to see the point was not about Wales voting leave, but that your posts may come back to haunt you in a big way should you wish to stand for office
They won't because I support the Tory policy of no indyref2 for the rest of this Parliament, that is without qualification and will be enforced using all necessary measures, the fact you may disagree with the party policy does not change that
Be fair to HYUFD, he is consistent: 1. No won the referendum 2. There will be no other referendum 3. If Scotland doesn't like it Scotland can be crushed into submission 4. Vote Tory
I did not actually say 2, I agree with Boris this morning that a second referendum in about 2055 would be allowed ie a 41 year gap as between the 1975 EEC referendum and the 2016 EU referendum
But you don’t say it like that.
You say that we will campaign against a referendum, but if the Scottish Parliament votes for one then of course the U.K. Parliament will have to consider it.
You then have a vote in Parliament, which gets voted down 550-80 or thereabouts, and can park the issue for a while.
That’s completely truthful, but also polite a process-driven, rather than needlessly antagonistic.
So Holyrood gets an SNP majority, Westminster overwhelmingly rejects it and you expect SNP hardliners to meekly accept that and shut up?
I’m saying that Westminster as a whole rejects it with a formal vote, rather than the PM personally telling Nippy to go f*** herself.
One of these processes likely causes a civil war among the nationalists, the other likely causes them to band together behind their leader.
Whether Boris rejects it or MPs as a whole reject it it will make no difference to nationalists, many of them would start to demand a referendum be held anyway and push Sturgeon to declare UDI, at which point we are already in a Madrid Catalonia 2017 style standoff
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Boris made clear this morning 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no independence referendum should be granted for 40 years at the earliest with no qualification on that.
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
And you believe Boris
Yes, he wants to stay UK PM and has no desire to be a 21st century Lord North and lose Scotland
Your way makes it certain
This is a bit of an odd argument. Unionists who want a referendum now are in the position of a man who likes his head in one piece arguing for an immediate game of Russian roulette in which he knows in advance that half the chambers are full.
Would you play such a game? I wouldn't.
Actually your analogy is incorrect. Right now there are 3 bullets in the 6 bullet chamber. But every time a referendum is refused a bullet is added and you know that in the not too distant future you will have to play the game not matter what. Surely the best bet is to play it now when the odds are about as good as they are ever going to be for you.
When HYUFD is finally selected as PPC for the Tory interest in the safe Essex seat of Riddle-by-the-Diddle, then your opponents will trawl through your 80,709 posts.
The Tories should have re-taken Gower in 2019. They didn't. Why? Someone looked up the social media profile of the Tory candidate.
Gower is in Wales which voted Leave just like England, the Tories have a majority of 80 UK wide and just 6 seats in Scotland and most of those 6 are filled with diehard Unionists like me
Again you are missing the point being made.
How are you going react as the Tory candidate when stuff is printing saying you proposed nuking Madrid or send tanks to Edinburgh. Especially when taken out of context it will make you look like a loon. We know you aren't, but Joe Blogs isn't going to.
If you check my posts I never once said nuke Madrid, that was LadyG, I merely pointed out the necessary measures that would be needed to defend Gibraltar in the event of a hypothetical, even if unlikely Spanish invasion, nothing unTory there.
I also have not once said send tanks to Edinburgh, merely not allow indyref2 for a generation
I did say 'taken out of context' and I certainly remember you saying parachuting the SAS into Gibraltar and you have certainly pointed out that we are a nuclear nation and Spain isn't and you have talked about troops in Scotland. I'm sorry but it is a hostage to fortune. I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure an opponent could have a lot of fun and games extrapolating and you would not have a leg to stand on in a libel action.
What an absurd post, the idea you could be libelled for saying the UK government would have to intervene militarily to defend Gibraltar if it was invaded by Spain.
In fact such a post would be fully supported by the vast majority of Tories and indeed most of the British population I imagine and the fact you think not agreeing to hand Gibraltar over to Spain without complaint is a ground for a libel action confirms how out of touch you and your fellow leftwingers so often are
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Boris made clear this morning 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no independence referendum should be granted for 40 years at the earliest with no qualification on that.
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
And you believe Boris
Yes, he wants to stay UK PM and has no desire to be a 21st century Lord North and lose Scotland
Your way makes it certain
This is a bit of an odd argument. Unionists who want a referendum now are in the position of a man who likes his head in one piece arguing for an immediate game of Russian roulette in which he knows in advance that half the chambers are full.
Would you play such a game? I wouldn't.
Actually your analogy is incorrect. Right now there are 3 bullets in the 6 bullet chamber. But every time a referendum is refused a bullet is added and you know that in the not too distant future you will have to play the game not matter what. Surely the best bet is to play it now when the odds are about as good as they are ever going to be for you.
They aren't Boris for starters is less popular in Scotland than Starmer, so obviously Boris would not agree even if a future PM Starmer does
Query: why hasn't Scottish Labour started to bounce back?
The SNP has been in power for a while, so I'd expect fatigue to set in among the electorate.
The Conservatives have the twin problems of having lost a charismatic leader in Scotland and having King of the Arseheads in Westminster.
The Lib Dems aren't really anywhere, are they?
So... was Corbyn kryptonite there too? How's Starmer viewed?
I don't think the general populace was that bothered about Corbyn and not much more or less about SKS; the SLab membership otoh wanted some un-noisy competence and plumped quite heavily for SKS, as predicted by lil ol' me. Leonard is a drag on the brand for reasons of meh and thickness.
Point of order, the SCons lost charismatic leader is currently leader in Holyrood to not much effect. The 'Why does Nicola Sturgeon hate Arbroath Smokies?' moment was good though.
An interesting Twitter thread on Scottish independence which looks at the issue from the wrong angle. It isn't reasons why departure is so problematic that is concerning people, its reasons why staying is so problematic.
We've just had Brexit. Leaving the EU, EEA and CU very clearly sets this country back yet it is supported because staying in was perceived as worse. The same is true in Scotland where the UK is increasingly the "other" that is repressing their ability to forge their own path.
Saying "leaving won't be easy" is to rerun the failed brexit remain campaign. Positive reasons to stay need to be argued - not just hot air ones but practicalities as to how Scotland can be made better inside a refreshed union. Not "rebellious Scots to crush" as advocated by the Baronet of Epping Forest.
I agree and the positive reasons for remaining in the union will become apparent when indyref2 happens
Don't forget that the positive reasons are actual things the Union will bring to Scotland, not "this is better than if you leave which will be really shit".
I really struggle for what those positives are right now. The UK is a disfunctional mess.
Compare COVID vaccination rate with the EU. Could SINDY have afforded the furlough scheme etc? (Not that ScotGov has spent all the money on Scottish businesss).
You really are a nasty piece of work. We would of course have just borrowed money for it , just like the UK did. How can unionists be so dumb to assume other people don't understand that.
Is that before or after you’ve met the Copenhagen criteria to join the EU?
Scotland already meets all of the criteria for EU membership, other than being an independent country. The convergence criteria are for the final stage of EMU and need not be met to become an EU member state.
The EU constitution requires membership of either Schengen or the Common Travel Area. The UK leaving doesn't end that. Scotland could opt to join (remain in) the Common Travel Area.
Also 'Sweden' for the bollox Euro adoption argument as well.
Technically the rules have been tightened since Sweden got themselves an unofficial opt out. Though still the Scots could opt out.
But I still think the SNP should advocate Euro membership and seek to win the argument on that. It is the best honest answer to the currency question, the idea of a "Sterling union" is nonsense, if you want that then stay within the United Kingdom.
The only honest independent Scotland currency options is an actual Scottish currency (not printing Scottish sterling notes) and the Euro.
That is right, the SNP need to embrace an independent currency as a stepping stone to the euro. Clinging to sterling isn't a viable option. Sweden don't have an unofficial opt out, they are just choosing not to exercise their obligation to join the euro right now. Scotland could do that too but I think it would make more sense to adopt the euro once the convergence criteria are met (which won't happen quickly). I think it should be fairly easy to arrange a 1-2 year transition arrangement with rUK regarding the border, CTA etc, while the currency is set up and EU accession talks start. It should be possible to set up a trusted trader scheme for most cross border trade to minimise paperwork. The border is quite simple, only a handful of crossing points and loads of space for infrastructure. The CTA would continue, I think - the political pressure to do so on both sides of the border would be immense, and Ireland is a significant precedent. If rUK refused Scotland could join Schengen immediately, even before joining the EU. Scotland would probably take on a population weighted share of UK debt, although that would have to be negotiated - legally the liability would fall on rUK. I think both sides would be reasonable - Scotland can offer a 5 or 10 year lease on Faslane as a gesture of goodwill, I doubt rUK would want to find a new home for its nukes immediately.
You talk as is severing a 300 year old union is like leaving student digs for a different flat down the road. If Brexit has shown anything, it has shown that major geopolitical disruptions - and partitions - have unimaginable consequences, many of them very bad, and departure is much much harder than anyone can really comprehend.
If you are sold on Scottish independence for emotional/sovereign reasons, fair enough: you are unpersuadable, and that's your right.
But let's not be stupid. Scottish indy would plunge Scotland into economic Depression and immediate fiscal nightmare, it would also provoke a long and deep recession in rUK. The political aftershocks would persist for many years, the wrangling might last a decade (Brexit has taken nearly 5 years, and will still go on in a lesser way).This is one reason why referendums should only be once a generation, and also why the power to allow a referendum resides with the UK government at Westminster - where Scots MPs are fully represented, alongside the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
If the Scots government is allowed to call a referendum every time they have a majority - ie any time they like - the uncertaintly and chaos will paralyse the whole British nation in perpetuity. It cannot be permitted.
Boris is right. Once in a generation. If this decision by the UK government so enrages Scots that they become evermore committed to indy, then so be it. That means they have given up on the UK and will leave anyway, evenetually. That doesn't mean Boris' decision is wrong. It is morally, economically and politically correct. He has to govern and make decisions on what is best for the whole of the UK.
There will be no indyref 2 until at least the next GE in 2024.
If you want to override the clearly expressed will of the Scottish population you are going to have to be prepared to do so by force. HYUFD is right on that. I don't disagree that Scottish independence will raise many economic challenges in the short run. That is why I used to be a Unionist, I thought it wasn't worth it. But Brexit has changed the calculus - Scotland is being taken in a direction its people have explicitly rejected, with absolutely no consideration given to its interests. The Union has become an unbalanced, toxic, abusive relationship. It is worth absorbing that short term pain to escape that.
Given Sturgeon is saying she will not hold an indyref2 without Westminster consent even if the SNP win a majority in May Boris may not even need to go as far as Rajoy did with Catalonia in 2017 in order to stick to his line that he will not grant the Scots a legal independence referendum.
Then the divisions would start to emerge between the SNP hardliners and those around Sturgeon
Dare I suggest that references to Catalonia 2017, in the context of Scotland, are less than helpful to the Unionist cause.
At the moment while Sturgeon is committed to only pushing for a lawful Westminster approved vote they maybe.
If however the SNP won an overall majority at Holyrood in May, Boris stuck to his no indyref2 for a generation line and SNP hardliners ousted Sturgeon and replaced her with one of their own committed to holding an independence referendum regardless of whether Westminster approval was forthcoming or not and if necessary UDI then I am afraid like it or not the comparison would be correct.
Boris would have no choice but to go full Rajoy 2017 to preserve the Union
Just looked in again and the first thing I read is this utter drivel
To our SNP friends please treat this poster as a 'havering one off' and unlike most of us who do recognise the issue and as supporters of the union
And before he accuses me of not being a conservative I am a member with a vote just as he is but hopefully I have a grown up attitude to the Scots who have been and always will be re a very special part of my life
Boris made clear this morning 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no independence referendum should be granted for 40 years at the earliest with no qualification on that.
I am defending the position of the party leader, if you yet again disagree with our PM and wish to topple him, tough!
And you believe Boris
Yes, he wants to stay UK PM and has no desire to be a 21st century Lord North and lose Scotland
Your way makes it certain
This is a bit of an odd argument. Unionists who want a referendum now are in the position of a man who likes his head in one piece arguing for an immediate game of Russian roulette in which he knows in advance that half the chambers are full.
Would you play such a game? I wouldn't.
Actually your analogy is incorrect. Right now there are 3 bullets in the 6 bullet chamber. But every time a referendum is refused a bullet is added and you know that in the not too distant future you will have to play the game not matter what. Surely the best bet is to play it now when the odds are about as good as they are ever going to be for you.
I understand that's the argument, but it rests on the twin assumptions that the unionists' odds can only ever deteriorate in the future and that another referendum must be held in the short to medium term. Neither of those assumptions is necessarily true, and every day we don't play is a 100% chance of us still having our heads
Sometimes a 'retreat until something comes up' strategy fails (as ultimately it did with Brexit), at other times it wins wars (Russia vs. Napoleon, Fabius Maximus vs. Hannibal). If the goal is to preserve the Union, it makes sense to avoid giving battle for the time being.
Interesting that the Times poll has Labour almost taking Wimbledon again - having held the seat 1997 - 2005 - despite being third place in 2019. A lot of potential to confuse tactical voters there - as happened in Kensington in 2019.Labour is also shown as back in a clear second place in Sutton Carshalton & Wallington which was a Tory/Labour marginal back in the 1970s. Colne Valley is incorrectly referred to as a 'Red Wall' seat. Back to neck and neck in Grimsby.
"Schools are safe", he says, overlooking that it's the children bringing the virus home that isnt safe
This subject is divisive across the country
However, it is vital that schools remain open as the damage to the children with closures will be do dreadful damage to their life chances
Schools should only close as a last resort
In two months things will be a lot better because of lockdown and vaccine. In three months the pressure on the NHS will have largely gone.
This is a last resort and if schools are closed for say a month it really wont make much difference to life chances. It is not an open ended closure like last time.
Have you any idea just how much damage this has already caused my granddaughter as she takes her A levels to secure her place in University in September. She is exceptionally talented but is receiving counselling for the stress she is undergoing with school closures and the lack of social connection with her friends
Oh please. I have a daughter who just started at university this year. I didn't get to see her at all for nine and a half months because of this. I know how hard it is for her.
I also have a friend whose friend has had their life-saving surgery cancelled because the operating theatre is being converted into Covid ICU.
The emergency is now. This is the time to take all the remaining "last resort" actions we have left.
I agree. This month is panic stations, a desperate race between the new variant and the vaccine with the winner having the hospitals. If we go fast enough with the vaccine next month might start to get better but we really need to move. Israel is vaccinating 1% of its population a day, that is about 680k for us. It seems a reasonable target.
To me, this moment in our Covid Crisis, seems very much like the fateful time Churchill visited the crucial 11th Fighter Group HQ, during the Battle of Britain, and looked at the map, showing the deployment of all RAF forces.
Churchill asked "So, where are the reserve fighters?"
The top brass said, "There are none, that's it".
As Churchill put it later, that “the odds were great; our margins small; the stakes infinite.” For fifty minutes, there were no more British fighters available
We are in that moment. Throw everything we have at the virus, via vaccinations. Or face the worst.
It doesn't matter how much we throw at vaccinations, they will not make a material difference for several weeks. Right now, sadly, it's still all about lockdown.
As part of doing the maths for the vaccine rollout in the UK (and Europe) I have changed my mind about the JVCI decision on single jabs and a 12 week waiting time. I've been reading a lot about how it would work and I've been speaking to a lot of people who are much better informed about it than I am as part of the research process. Ultimately it boils down to this, with a million doses of vaccine we can either get 700k people immunised in three weeks or 475k in five weeks assuming 70% efficacy for a single jab after three weeks and 95% for two jabs two weeks after the second. I think the JVCI have made the right decision here, we're in this as a nation rather than as individuals which means getting as many people immunised as possible in the shortest period of time is what we need to be looking at.
Additionally, after speaking to one of the leading experts on vaccine based immunity they seemed to think that the longer gap between Pfizer jabs would get an even stronger immunity as the B cells actually give a stronger response to known pathogens during weeks 6-15 after the initial infection. They said that without the pandemic Pfizer would probably have tested 3, 6, 9 and 12 week intervals as part of their PIII/IV trials but under the circumstances of emergency approval it's not easy to run them.
I think that other countries are going to have to hold their noses and follow suit especially in Europe where vaccine doses are going to be in short supply all the way through 2021.
So yeah, I take back my original position on this and say bravo to the JVCI decision and begrudgingly Tony Blair.
It means it's crucial though that vaccinated people continue to follow the same restrictions as everyone else because both the individual risk and the danger of spreading the virus will remain substantial for them. But it should eventually bring down R enough to allow gradually easing restrictions for everyone.
Yes, I think this is not properly understood yet. Too many people seem to be saying "when I've had my vaccine I can go out with friends / on holiday / to a rave". Someone is going to have to break it to the public that vaccination does not mean that the restrictions do not apply. Legally, or morally. Not until vaccination is much more widespread.
Comments
But I see the risk of allowing the SNP to build up a head of indignation by refusing to accept the view of the Scottish people if a majority, however misguided, vote for a second referendum. It would be stupid and make the job of those fighting for the Union, such as me, more difficult.
NEW THREAD
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/the-labour-falkirk-controversy-explained-2013070474801
You might think being mean to our friends and neighbours in Scotland is a winning strategy but I can assure you it isn't.
One of these processes likely causes a civil war among the nationalists, the other likely causes them to band together behind their leader.
Dealing with possible last resort options to preserve the Union if SNP hardliners held an illegal independence referendum and declared UDI is nothing like the same and I would be astonished if the Cabinet have also not already run through similar scenarios
The idea that Boris Johnson's wants aren't the only factor in any calculation- whether it's Covid (he wants infections to fall while schools remain open), the Union (he doesn't want Scotland to go its own way) or Brexit (he still wants cake and eat it)- simply doesn't occur to him.
In fact such a post would be fully supported by the vast majority of Tories and indeed most of the British population I imagine and the fact you think not agreeing to hand Gibraltar over to Spain without complaint is a ground for a libel action confirms how out of touch you and your fellow leftwingers so often are
Point of order, the SCons lost charismatic leader is currently leader in Holyrood to not much effect. The 'Why does Nicola Sturgeon hate Arbroath Smokies?' moment was good though.
Sometimes a 'retreat until something comes up' strategy fails (as ultimately it did with Brexit), at other times it wins wars (Russia vs. Napoleon, Fabius Maximus vs. Hannibal). If the goal is to preserve the Union, it makes sense to avoid giving battle for the time being.
Colne Valley is incorrectly referred to as a 'Red Wall' seat.
Back to neck and neck in Grimsby.
--AS