Should get to over 500k today, hopefully we do that on a regular basis next week for 3-3.5m doses per week. It would completely short circuit the whole 12 week cycle slowdown that people are worried about. AZ have really smashed it, with government help.
I said something about the AZ vaccine being the real deal at the time it was first announced.
What’s annoying is I can’t find the quote to prove it using Google and I can’t be bothered to scroll through all the old threads to find it, so you’ll just have to take my word for my awesome prescience.
If you are on mobile the search function on vanilla is really quite good now. You can filter by author and date range.
It is how I keep turning up peoples' (my own included) blown predictions.
Sir, you are officially a genius. I didn’t know about that feature.
Here it is, in all its glory: If it's 90% effective on a more rigorous testing regime than the others, costs a tenth to make and can be stored in a bog-standard piece of kit without spending zillions on dry ice:
Then screw the other vaccines, this is the real deal.
It was said on here the other day that the Double Boris vaccine is also very cheap, so if it is effective, cheap and a one shot to boot, then that must be a major option moving forward presumably.
But the AZ one really does seem remarkably cheap and convenient.
Though someone else awhile back was saying that the most effective of the vaccines like Pfizer are made with more cutting edge kit, while AZ and others are made with much more bare bones techniques?
The mRNA vaccines are brand new technology, at least in the global-scale vaccination context.
Arf,Arf, Arf, do you have a squint, vertical in one and at 45 degrees in the other, faker than a 3 bob bit
Why the holy fuck would they add a different fake reflection to the picture? Are you completely mental?
You think it is just because they have one of those fairground mirrors then.
No. It's a normal mirror. You fail to understand perspective and its effect on a 2d picture of a 3d world.
OK Professor, it must be so
Try using Occam's razor. What possible advantage to Downing St is there in photoshopping the reflection in a photograph?
The more interesting point is that a large number of people appear no longer believe anything that comes out of No.10, even when it’s a completely innocuous (if slightly silly) photograph.
When that number includes the political editor of ITV News it's more of a worry than a point of interest, don't you think?
Peston is pretty hopeless. Regrettable, but I don’t think that’s a national crisis.
As I said in the previous thread. It's like those QAnon rubes, they want to believe in something so much that they pause all higher brain function when something comes along that purports to prove them right. Peston is no better with this bullshit. He wants to believe that the government is doing something nefarious, so will believe absolutely anything to support that belief. It's not something that you want in the supposedly neutral political editor of a major TV channel.
I’d agree - but in the scheme if things, it’s not hugely important.
I’d massively prefer, for example, that Gavin Williamson were political editor of ITV news than Education Secretary.
I don't think it's hugely important either. It does, once again, prove to me that twitter is for c****, though and there is nothing useful to be gained from its existence.
That, I think, is simply wrong. It’s very useful indeed - I don’t know of any other single source of such a variety of top quality précis information -you just have to be selective in what you pay attention to.
Anything more than a few months old seems to disappear into an ungoogleable black hole, lost to the world. At least abandoned blog posts stand a chance at showing up.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
Jesus Christ, we have a global pandemic killing millions and some journalists are concerning themselves with a photo of Boris on the phone.
It like during the blitz of WWII worrying that the postman might not keep quite the same hours as normal.
More like Gibbons’ caricatures of Roman Christians debating the nature of the Trinity as their empire collapsed around them.
Hmm, is that really the same? As trivial as that might be, and some of the arguments around the nature of the Trinity seem very inconsequential probably even to believers today, but it was at least presumably an argument around the nature of God and therefore their eternal souls? Might be better things to focus on, but I can at least understand why that might seem important even at such a time.
Arf,Arf, Arf, do you have a squint, vertical in one and at 45 degrees in the other, faker than a 3 bob bit
Why the holy fuck would they add a different fake reflection to the picture? Are you completely mental?
You think it is just because they have one of those fairground mirrors then.
No. It's a normal mirror. You fail to understand perspective and its effect on a 2d picture of a 3d world.
OK Professor, it must be so
Try using Occam's razor. What possible advantage to Downing St is there in photoshopping the reflection in a photograph?
The more interesting point is that a large number of people appear no longer believe anything that comes out of No.10, even when it’s a completely innocuous (if slightly silly) photograph.
I don't think you can exactly blame the Government for that. Would you also apply the same logic to the people in the US who refuse to accept the official narrative for the election results? This is a much wider problem that stems from social media allowing crackpots to share ludicrous conspiracy theories and have them spread at light speed.
I didn’t. But it’s interesting that we have a similar problem to the US - albeit less extreme.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
It is clever however what's the plan if the Westminster sues for an injunction and wins? Looking impotent is never good.
I'm not sure why WM would need to do anything. The referendum would have no basis in law, unionists would ignore it, and the whole exercise would function as little more than an expensive and frivolous (hopefully post-pandemic enough not to be dangerous) SNP masturbation exercise.
Arf,Arf, Arf, do you have a squint, vertical in one and at 45 degrees in the other, faker than a 3 bob bit
Why the holy fuck would they add a different fake reflection to the picture? Are you completely mental?
You think it is just because they have one of those fairground mirrors then.
No. It's a normal mirror. You fail to understand perspective and its effect on a 2d picture of a 3d world.
OK Professor, it must be so
Try using Occam's razor. What possible advantage to Downing St is there in photoshopping the reflection in a photograph?
The more interesting point is that a large number of people appear no longer believe anything that comes out of No.10, even when it’s a completely innocuous (if slightly silly) photograph.
When that number includes the political editor of ITV News it's more of a worry than a point of interest, don't you think?
Peston is pretty hopeless. Regrettable, but I don’t think that’s a national crisis.
As I said in the previous thread. It's like those QAnon rubes, they want to believe in something so much that they pause all higher brain function when something comes along that purports to prove them right. Peston is no better with this bullshit. He wants to believe that the government is doing something nefarious, so will believe absolutely anything to support that belief. It's not something that you want in the supposedly neutral political editor of a major TV channel.
Prof Peston pandemic coverage has been moronic....Mr "I have spoken to experts in the chemical industry and they told me dead easy to make the required compounds, so the government are lying"....
Here is another dickhead moment... JVT trying to explain to this tw@t he knows f##k all about f##k all.
Should get to over 500k today, hopefully we do that on a regular basis next week for 3-3.5m doses per week. It would completely short circuit the whole 12 week cycle slowdown that people are worried about. AZ have really smashed it, with government help.
I said something about the AZ vaccine being the real deal at the time it was first announced.
What’s annoying is I can’t find the quote to prove it using Google and I can’t be bothered to scroll through all the old threads to find it, so you’ll just have to take my word for my awesome prescience.
If you are on mobile the search function on vanilla is really quite good now. You can filter by author and date range.
It is how I keep turning up peoples' (my own included) blown predictions.
Sir, you are officially a genius. I didn’t know about that feature.
Here it is, in all its glory: If it's 90% effective on a more rigorous testing regime than the others, costs a tenth to make and can be stored in a bog-standard piece of kit without spending zillions on dry ice:
Then screw the other vaccines, this is the real deal.
It was said on here the other day that the Double Boris vaccine is also very cheap, so if it is effective, cheap and a one shot to boot, then that must be a major option moving forward presumably.
But the AZ one really does seem remarkably cheap and convenient.
Though someone else awhile back was saying that the most effective of the vaccines like Pfizer are made with more cutting edge kit, while AZ and others are made with much more bare bones techniques?
The mRNA vaccines are brand new technology, at least in the global-scale vaccination context.
I suppose the big question is whether, even though the AZ might do the job very well this time, the UK is set up to have such brand new tech in the future at least?
Arf,Arf, Arf, do you have a squint, vertical in one and at 45 degrees in the other, faker than a 3 bob bit
Why the holy fuck would they add a different fake reflection to the picture? Are you completely mental?
You think it is just because they have one of those fairground mirrors then.
No. It's a normal mirror. You fail to understand perspective and its effect on a 2d picture of a 3d world.
OK Professor, it must be so
Try using Occam's razor. What possible advantage to Downing St is there in photoshopping the reflection in a photograph?
The more interesting point is that a large number of people appear no longer believe anything that comes out of No.10, even when it’s a completely innocuous (if slightly silly) photograph.
When that number includes the political editor of ITV News it's more of a worry than a point of interest, don't you think?
Peston is pretty hopeless. Regrettable, but I don’t think that’s a national crisis.
As I said in the previous thread. It's like those QAnon rubes, they want to believe in something so much that they pause all higher brain function when something comes along that purports to prove them right. Peston is no better with this bullshit. He wants to believe that the government is doing something nefarious, so will believe absolutely anything to support that belief. It's not something that you want in the supposedly neutral political editor of a major TV channel.
I’d agree - but in the scheme if things, it’s not hugely important.
I’d massively prefer, for example, that Gavin Williamson were political editor of ITV news than Education Secretary.
I don't think it's hugely important either. It does, once again, prove to me that twitter is for c****, though and there is nothing useful to be gained from its existence.
That, I think, is simply wrong. It’s very useful indeed - I don’t know of any other single source of such a variety of top quality précis information -you just have to be selective in what you pay attention to.
Anything more than a few months old seems to disappear into an ungoogleable black hole, lost to the world. At least abandoned blog posts stand a chance at showing up.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
The quote in the lead from the BBC ‘the project’ brought back memories.
The Tories in my London ward were always telling me that my seat was ‘on loan’, and they’d win it back next time. During my first campaign I canvassed the house of the local Tory ward chairman (back when I was young and fearless), and she told me she couldn’t understand why I was spending so much time campaigning because she knew that we would never win her ward.
On the way into the count in 1994, the Tory agent told me my campaigning had been a waste of time as their figures showed they had held the seat. Yet I won by over a thousand (which is a lot).
After that count they advised me to enjoy the next four years as the seat was on loan and they’d win it back next time. Which they didn’t.
In the council chamber each time the election approached I’d hear the same lines from the Tories, yet would be re-elected. During the coalition both Tory and Labour councillors took pleasure in predicting we’d all lose our seats in 2014, yet we did manage to hang on, just.
The Tories never gave up their imagined ‘ownership’ of my ward despite LibDems representing it for a full twenty four years.
On the other hand, as far as the national picture is concerned, Tony Blair told his party as far back as 2001 that the Tories were not dead, but 'only sleeping'. And as it turns out, their vote share has increased at every single general election since he uttered those words...
A man I dislike a lot but who knows more about how to win from the centre left than anyone else in politics!
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
It is clever however what's the plan if the Westminster sues for an injunction and wins? Looking impotent is never good.
I'm not sure why WM would need to do anything. The referendum would have no basis in law, unionists would ignore it, and the whole exercise would function as little more than an expensive and frivolous (hopefully post-pandemic enough not to be dangerous) SNP masturbation exercise.
Other world beating British masturbation exercises will be available.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
So you're saying an 'illegal' referendum could take place? A shocking disregard for upholding the rule of law.
Even Madrid could not stop the illegal Catalan referendum taking place and the nationalists won it despite the Unionist boycott.
However once it had taken place Madrid simply ignored the result, suspended the Catalan Parliament and ordered the arrest of Catalan nationalist leaders for holding an illegal referendum without the consent of the central government
Again, can you explain what you mean by "illegal"?
The Scotland Act 1998 reserves Union matters to the UK government so without UK government consent any such referendum would be illegal and if Sturgeon tried to implement a breakaway from the Union at that point after the referendum without UK government consent the Supreme Court of the UK would strike her down as acting outside the scope of the Act.
If she then defied the Court Sturgeon's arrest could be ordered for contempt of court.
The Supreme Court is mostly an appelate court. It is basically a rebadged Judicial Committee of the House of Lords which, in turn, inherited an appellate role in Scottish Civil actions (not criminal) from the pre-1707 Old Scottish Parliament. So if you are suggesting this is a criminal matter then the Supreme Court probably has no say. The appeallate jurisdicition of the Old Scottish Parliament that the Supreme Court has, via convoluted route, inherited does not include criminal matters. Admittedly, the Scotland Act 1998 does create a limited right of review for the UK Supreme Court in relation to criminal cases in which a devolution issue arises, but that was created for things like disputes over who has jurisdiction in cross border railway policing matters, and I cannot see how organising an advisory referendum can be criminal offence anyway.
So, to get the Supreme Court to "strike down" an advisory referendum, as you so quaintly put it then, I think, the UK Government would have to appliy for an interdict from the Court of Session and, if they refused it, appeal it up to the Supreme Court. If the SNP refused to abide by an interdict that would be, presumably, a contempt. It's a brave man to suggest the Court of Session would seek to intervene in an advisory referendum and an even braver man to say that the Supreme Court would definately overturn any refusal. An advisory referendum is little more than an opinion poll.
Should get to over 500k today, hopefully we do that on a regular basis next week for 3-3.5m doses per week. It would completely short circuit the whole 12 week cycle slowdown that people are worried about. AZ have really smashed it, with government help.
I said something about the AZ vaccine being the real deal at the time it was first announced.
What’s annoying is I can’t find the quote to prove it using Google and I can’t be bothered to scroll through all the old threads to find it, so you’ll just have to take my word for my awesome prescience.
If you are on mobile the search function on vanilla is really quite good now. You can filter by author and date range.
It is how I keep turning up peoples' (my own included) blown predictions.
Sir, you are officially a genius. I didn’t know about that feature.
Here it is, in all its glory: If it's 90% effective on a more rigorous testing regime than the others, costs a tenth to make and can be stored in a bog-standard piece of kit without spending zillions on dry ice:
Then screw the other vaccines, this is the real deal.
It was said on here the other day that the Double Boris vaccine is also very cheap, so if it is effective, cheap and a one shot to boot, then that must be a major option moving forward presumably.
But the AZ one really does seem remarkably cheap and convenient.
Though someone else awhile back was saying that the most effective of the vaccines like Pfizer are made with more cutting edge kit, while AZ and others are made with much more bare bones techniques?
The mRNA vaccines are brand new technology, at least in the global-scale vaccination context.
I suppose the big question is whether, even though the AZ might do the job very well this time, the UK is set up to have such brand new tech in the future at least?
Yes, we have a new manufacturing centre that is capable of producing over 100m doses of mRNA vaccine doses in months. It's about to or just opened for business.
500k vaccinations / day, excluding Israel, leading the world....yeah but what about that phone line in the mirror of a PR shot for Boris talking to the POTUS (which we know for a fact happened).
I would be embarrassed if I was a serious journalist at some in my profession.
Should get to over 500k today, hopefully we do that on a regular basis next week for 3-3.5m doses per week. It would completely short circuit the whole 12 week cycle slowdown that people are worried about. AZ have really smashed it, with government help.
I said something about the AZ vaccine being the real deal at the time it was first announced.
What’s annoying is I can’t find the quote to prove it using Google and I can’t be bothered to scroll through all the old threads to find it, so you’ll just have to take my word for my awesome prescience.
If you are on mobile the search function on vanilla is really quite good now. You can filter by author and date range.
It is how I keep turning up peoples' (my own included) blown predictions.
Sir, you are officially a genius. I didn’t know about that feature.
Here it is, in all its glory: If it's 90% effective on a more rigorous testing regime than the others, costs a tenth to make and can be stored in a bog-standard piece of kit without spending zillions on dry ice:
Then screw the other vaccines, this is the real deal.
It was said on here the other day that the Double Boris vaccine is also very cheap, so if it is effective, cheap and a one shot to boot, then that must be a major option moving forward presumably.
But the AZ one really does seem remarkably cheap and convenient.
Though someone else awhile back was saying that the most effective of the vaccines like Pfizer are made with more cutting edge kit, while AZ and others are made with much more bare bones techniques?
The mRNA vaccines are brand new technology, at least in the global-scale vaccination context.
I suppose the big question is whether, even though the AZ might do the job very well this time, the UK is set up to have such brand new tech in the future at least?
The UK is up with the world leaders in Synthetic Biology. US, China, Germany and UK are top 4, by some distance from the pack (OK Israel might be in there too on a much smaller scale).
The advantage of the mRNA vaccine approach is that the production process is cell-free, dependent just on reagents and enzymes. However, supply of the reagents seems to be an issue at the moment, and unless tech is discovered to stabilize the mRNA, storage of the vaccine will continue to pose logistical challenges.
My guess is that world production of reagents will now be increased massively, with non-Chinese, non-Indian sources being added as national strategic assets in order to reduce dependency on unreliable sources.
For those interested, here is a description of the production process:
"The manufacturing process begins with the generation of a plasmid DNA (pDNA) containing a DNA-dependent RNA polymerase promoter, such as T7,6 and the corresponding sequence for the mRNA construct. The pDNA is linearized to serve as a template for the DNA-dependent RNA polymerase to transcribe the mRNA, and subsequently degraded by a DNase process step. The addition of the 5′ cap and the 3′ poly(A) tail can be achieved during the in vitro transcription step7,8 or enzymatically after transcription.9 Enzymatic addition of the cap can be accomplished by using guanylyl transferase and 2′-O-methyltransferase to yield a Cap 0 (N7MeGpppN) or Cap 1 (N7MeGpppN2′-OMe) structure, respectively, while the poly-A tail can be achieved through enzymatic addition via poly-A polymerase.
"Purification is a crucial next step, which can be achieved with the application of high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC).10 The resultant drug substance is then formulated into drug product and released based on sterility, identity, purity, and potency testing. These processes allow Good Manufacturing Practise (GMPs) facilities to switch to a new vaccine within a very short period of time, given that the reaction materials and vessels are the same."
Arf,Arf, Arf, do you have a squint, vertical in one and at 45 degrees in the other, faker than a 3 bob bit
Why the holy fuck would they add a different fake reflection to the picture? Are you completely mental?
You think it is just because they have one of those fairground mirrors then.
No. It's a normal mirror. You fail to understand perspective and its effect on a 2d picture of a 3d world.
OK Professor, it must be so
Try using Occam's razor. What possible advantage to Downing St is there in photoshopping the reflection in a photograph?
The more interesting point is that a large number of people appear no longer believe anything that comes out of No.10, even when it’s a completely innocuous (if slightly silly) photograph.
When that number includes the political editor of ITV News it's more of a worry than a point of interest, don't you think?
Peston is pretty hopeless. Regrettable, but I don’t think that’s a national crisis.
As I said in the previous thread. It's like those QAnon rubes, they want to believe in something so much that they pause all higher brain function when something comes along that purports to prove them right. Peston is no better with this bullshit. He wants to believe that the government is doing something nefarious, so will believe absolutely anything to support that belief. It's not something that you want in the supposedly neutral political editor of a major TV channel.
I’d agree - but in the scheme if things, it’s not hugely important.
I’d massively prefer, for example, that Gavin Williamson were political editor of ITV news than Education Secretary.
I don't think it's hugely important either. It does, once again, prove to me that twitter is for c****, though and there is nothing useful to be gained from its existence.
That, I think, is simply wrong. It’s very useful indeed - I don’t know of any other single source of such a variety of top quality précis information -you just have to be selective in what you pay attention to.
Anything more than a few months old seems to disappear into an ungoogleable black hole, lost to the world. At least abandoned blog posts stand a chance at showing up.
Indeed, it’s not a great archive. But it does what it does very well indeed.
500k vaccinations / day, excluding Israel, leading the world....yeah but what about that phone line in the mirror of a PR shot for Boris talking to the POTUS (which we know for a fact happened).
I would be embarrassed if I was a serious journalist at some in my profession.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
To an extent, I agree with you. But the answer to that might be, don’t make promises you can’t keep. Demanding a further referendum is within the powers, actually holding one probably isn’t. And if it doesn’t happen when they’ve promised it, it might stoke the current anti-English anger, but it would also make the SNP look weak and dishonest.
After all, I could be elected on a promise to make everyone a millionaire, to stop the Uigher genocide and make the world disarm all nuclear weapons, but that doesn’t mean I’d have the power to make it happen.
Very interesting. I suppose when you gain a seat you get the chance to be the MP for the 1st time. You can start building your reputation which ought to be a net positive assuming you are diligent and skilled at PR (as you will be otherwise you wouldn't have made it that far). As time passes there will be diminishing returns from this due to (i) the general law of diminishing returns and (ii) your loss of freshness and energy. Hence the Sophomore Effect. I'd never thought about it this way before. Seems counter instinctive and I might have assumed the opposite, that's it's harder ceteris paribus to hold a seat you've just gained than one you've just clung on to. But it does make sense. Great piece anyway. Have filed away for possible smug city techie shrewdie betting use.
That might be part of it, but I think the way it works is that incumbents get a bonus every time, it's just more noticeable the first time because you didn't have it last time as a challenger.
It also works in reverse. Look what happened to Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest when he tried to win the seat back in 2015. Once he lost the incumbency bonus, his vote when down considerably.
There has been further developments on the issue of local elections in May. The LGIU has carried out a survey suggesting local authorities are overwhelmingly against holding them then but would prefer to defer to September. Meanwhile Cloe Smith, the Cabinet Officer minister responsible, has sent out a letter with advice about campaigning. It appears to suggest that party activists should not deliver leaflets but should use delivery firms. What difference this would make I have no idea except it what advantage local parties with the necessary funds. There is also an implicit idea that existing councillors can send out material but not challengers ( on the grounds that existing councillors are informing their voters. Expect quite a reaction - it has already started.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
They could get on with the day-to-day business of running the country instead of investing all their energy in a divisive constitutional issue. It isn't as if we don't know what happens next.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
They could get on with the day-to-day business of running the country instead of investing all their energy in a divisive constitutional issue. It isn't as if we don't know what happens next.
Maybe you should be advising the Scottish people not to keep voting for them then.
Arf,Arf, Arf, do you have a squint, vertical in one and at 45 degrees in the other, faker than a 3 bob bit
Why the holy fuck would they add a different fake reflection to the picture? Are you completely mental?
You think it is just because they have one of those fairground mirrors then.
No. It's a normal mirror. You fail to understand perspective and its effect on a 2d picture of a 3d world.
OK Professor, it must be so
Try using Occam's razor. What possible advantage to Downing St is there in photoshopping the reflection in a photograph?
The more interesting point is that a large number of people appear no longer believe anything that comes out of No.10, even when it’s a completely innocuous (if slightly silly) photograph.
When that number includes the political editor of ITV News it's more of a worry than a point of interest, don't you think?
Peston is pretty hopeless. Regrettable, but I don’t think that’s a national crisis.
As I said in the previous thread. It's like those QAnon rubes, they want to believe in something so much that they pause all higher brain function when something comes along that purports to prove them right. Peston is no better with this bullshit. He wants to believe that the government is doing something nefarious, so will believe absolutely anything to support that belief. It's not something that you want in the supposedly neutral political editor of a major TV channel.
Prof Peston pandemic coverage has been moronic....Mr "I have spoken to experts in the chemical industry and they told me dead easy to make the required compounds, so the government are lying"....
Here is another dickhead moment... JVT trying to explain to this tw@t he knows f##k all about f##k all.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
It is clever however what's the plan if the Westminster sues for an injunction and wins? Looking impotent is never good.
I'm not sure why WM would need to do anything. The referendum would have no basis in law, unionists would ignore it, and the whole exercise would function as little more than an expensive and frivolous (hopefully post-pandemic enough not to be dangerous) SNP masturbation exercise.
Other world beating British masturbation exercises will be available.
I'm not defending the suggestion of a 'Festival of Brexit'. You are (I take it) defending the notion of a wildcat referendum on independence adjacent to Brexit and and in the immediate aftermath of a global pandemic.
Here are the SNP’s results in Scottish elections at Westminster since they were founded.
No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats
Third Third
Fourth Fourth Fourth Fourth
Third Third Third Third
First First First
I think that's what one would call an upward trend.
I'm surprised* a Scotch expert is ignorant of the SNP's first by election victory in 1945.
*not surprised
The point is, it isn’t a trend. 2015 was a tsunami after years of the SNP being about as politically relevant as Yorkshire First.
So things can change very suddenly.
Not that I expect them to, if only because certain SNP supporters seem to have a positively Trumpian attitude towards inconvenient facts at the moment, But they can.
Mr. T, the answer to your first question is that he doesn't understand how mirrors work. That's quite high on the thicky-o-meter.
The answer to your second may be that God moves in mysterious ways. And has a perverse sense of humour.
He clearly does not recognize when he is making a fool of himself in the presence of a far better-informed authority, and hence when it is time to shut up, listen and learn. That is the first rule of bullshitting, so he's not even good at that.
Arf,Arf, Arf, do you have a squint, vertical in one and at 45 degrees in the other, faker than a 3 bob bit
Why the holy fuck would they add a different fake reflection to the picture? Are you completely mental?
You think it is just because they have one of those fairground mirrors then.
No. It's a normal mirror. You fail to understand perspective and its effect on a 2d picture of a 3d world.
OK Professor, it must be so
Try using Occam's razor. What possible advantage to Downing St is there in photoshopping the reflection in a photograph?
The more interesting point is that a large number of people appear no longer believe anything that comes out of No.10, even when it’s a completely innocuous (if slightly silly) photograph.
When that number includes the political editor of ITV News it's more of a worry than a point of interest, don't you think?
Peston is pretty hopeless. Regrettable, but I don’t think that’s a national crisis.
As I said in the previous thread. It's like those QAnon rubes, they want to believe in something so much that they pause all higher brain function when something comes along that purports to prove them right. Peston is no better with this bullshit. He wants to believe that the government is doing something nefarious, so will believe absolutely anything to support that belief. It's not something that you want in the supposedly neutral political editor of a major TV channel.
Prof Peston pandemic coverage has been moronic....Mr "I have spoken to experts in the chemical industry and they told me dead easy to make the required compounds, so the government are lying"....
Here is another dickhead moment... JVT trying to explain to this tw@t he knows f##k all about f##k all.
500k vaccinations / day, excluding Israel, leading the world....yeah but what about that phone line in the mirror of a PR shot for Boris talking to the POTUS (which we know for a fact happened).
I would be embarrassed if I was a serious journalist at some in my profession.
Sky UK is squaring up to Netflix, Amazon and Disney+ in the battle for viewers by increasing its number of original British shows by 50% and releasing a new, exclusive film every fortnight, including a Danny Boyle-backed biopic about Britpop record label Creation Records.
Fuelled by Britain’s appetite for bingeing on new shows during the pandemic, the number of UK subscribers to the main three streaming services is now approximately 32m – double that of traditional pay-TV companies such as Sky, BT and Virgin Media.
On topic, excellent first time header @tlg86. Suspect you are right that tactical alignment towards the next election has not kicked in yet (and the lack of local elections in COVID might also feed into that), but maybe the level of polarisation at 2019 might also not lend itself to strong incumbency signals.
And though we know some of the tectonics - Brexit, post-COVID realities-, it is even more difficult than usual to understand what the landscape of 2024 is likely to.look like in the current stasis. With little idea even of the game, why would you get to the tactics.
Here are the SNP’s results in Scottish elections at Westminster since they were founded.
No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats
Third Third
Fourth Fourth Fourth Fourth
Third Third Third Third
First First First
I think that's what one would call an upward trend.
I'm surprised* a Scotch expert is ignorant of the SNP's first by election victory in 1945.
*not surprised
This was about results in generals, not by-elections though. DId they win any in those he has listed as 'no seats'?
No. They held a seat from 1967-70, for example (Ewing, I think) but lost it at the General Election. Although I accept, I could and should have said ‘general’ elections in the top to avoid confusion.
There has been further developments on the issue of local elections in May. The LGIU has carried out a survey suggesting local authorities are overwhelmingly against holding them then but would prefer to defer to September. Meanwhile Cloe Smith, the Cabinet Officer minister responsible, has sent out a letter with advice about campaigning. It appears to suggest that party activists should not deliver leaflets but should use delivery firms. What difference this would make I have no idea except it what advantage local parties with the necessary funds. There is also an implicit idea that existing councillors can send out material but not challengers ( on the grounds that existing councillors are informing their voters. Expect quite a reaction - it has already started.
I'm not surprised LAs would be against them, it's just not that urgent for most of them, and delaying to September is far more convenient in terms of stopping then restarting preparations than delaying to July. I do continue to maintain party activists vastly overestimate the general importance of their campaigning, based on the occasions when it has indeed made a big difference, as most people still don't get canvassed or receive more than one leaflet (though where people do bother to work harder, it can matter, given the low turnout in most races). Certainly it would be unfair for incumbents to get any sort of advantage.
I'm still expecting a last minute deferral, maybe in late December, but the government have already held firmer than I thought they would.
Here are the SNP’s results in Scottish elections at Westminster since they were founded.
No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats
Third Third
Fourth Fourth Fourth Fourth
Third Third Third Third
First First First
I think that's what one would call an upward trend.
I'm surprised* a Scotch expert is ignorant of the SNP's first by election victory in 1945.
*not surprised
This was about results in generals, not by-elections though. DId they win any in those he has listed as 'no seats'?
No. They held a seat from 1967-70, for example (Ewing, I think) but lost it at the General Election. Although I accept, I could and should have said ‘general’ elections in the top to avoid confusion.
It was in response to two posts which did specify this game was about GE results.
Sky UK is squaring up to Netflix, Amazon and Disney+ in the battle for viewers by increasing its number of original British shows by 50% and releasing a new, exclusive film every fortnight, including a Danny Boyle-backed biopic about Britpop record label Creation Records.
Fuelled by Britain’s appetite for bingeing on new shows during the pandemic, the number of UK subscribers to the main three streaming services is now approximately 32m – double that of traditional pay-TV companies such as Sky, BT and Virgin Media.
Should get to over 500k today, hopefully we do that on a regular basis next week for 3-3.5m doses per week. It would completely short circuit the whole 12 week cycle slowdown that people are worried about. AZ have really smashed it, with government help.
I said something about the AZ vaccine being the real deal at the time it was first announced.
What’s annoying is I can’t find the quote to prove it using Google and I can’t be bothered to scroll through all the old threads to find it, so you’ll just have to take my word for my awesome prescience.
If you are on mobile the search function on vanilla is really quite good now. You can filter by author and date range.
It is how I keep turning up peoples' (my own included) blown predictions.
Sir, you are officially a genius. I didn’t know about that feature.
Here it is, in all its glory: If it's 90% effective on a more rigorous testing regime than the others, costs a tenth to make and can be stored in a bog-standard piece of kit without spending zillions on dry ice:
Then screw the other vaccines, this is the real deal.
It was said on here the other day that the Double Boris vaccine is also very cheap, so if it is effective, cheap and a one shot to boot, then that must be a major option moving forward presumably.
But the AZ one really does seem remarkably cheap and convenient.
Though someone else awhile back was saying that the most effective of the vaccines like Pfizer are made with more cutting edge kit, while AZ and others are made with much more bare bones techniques?
The mRNA vaccines are brand new technology, at least in the global-scale vaccination context.
I suppose the big question is whether, even though the AZ might do the job very well this time, the UK is set up to have such brand new tech in the future at least?
The UK is up with the world leaders in Synthetic Biology. US, China, Germany and UK are top 4, by some distance from the pack (OK Israel might be in there too on a much smaller scale).
The advantage of the mRNA vaccine approach is that the production process is cell-free, dependent just on reagents and enzymes. However, supply of the reagents seems to be an issue at the moment, and unless tech is discovered to stabilize the mRNA, storage of the vaccine will continue to pose logistical challenges.
My guess is that world production of reagents will now be increased massively, with non-Chinese, non-Indian sources being added as national strategic assets in order to reduce dependency on unreliable sources.
For those interested, here is a description of the production process:
"The manufacturing process begins with the generation of a plasmid DNA (pDNA) containing a DNA-dependent RNA polymerase promoter, such as T7,6 and the corresponding sequence for the mRNA construct. The pDNA is linearized to serve as a template for the DNA-dependent RNA polymerase to transcribe the mRNA, and subsequently degraded by a DNase process step. The addition of the 5′ cap and the 3′ poly(A) tail can be achieved during the in vitro transcription step7,8 or enzymatically after transcription.9 Enzymatic addition of the cap can be accomplished by using guanylyl transferase and 2′-O-methyltransferase to yield a Cap 0 (N7MeGpppN) or Cap 1 (N7MeGpppN2′-OMe) structure, respectively, while the poly-A tail can be achieved through enzymatic addition via poly-A polymerase.
"Purification is a crucial next step, which can be achieved with the application of high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC).10 The resultant drug substance is then formulated into drug product and released based on sterility, identity, purity, and potency testing. These processes allow Good Manufacturing Practise (GMPs) facilities to switch to a new vaccine within a very short period of time, given that the reaction materials and vessels are the same."
There's a big difference between not trusting what those we dislike tell us and assuming everything is fake or has malicious motivation.
It's not that I don't trust BoZo
It's that everything he says is a lie.
The point remains the same, because that is obviously untrue and you are engaging in comic overstatement, since no one can lie all the time, not even Boris, so treating every single communication as the opposite of truth is going to make people look very stupid if they are being serious, and they usually are.
Assume it has a good chance of being a lie, sure, but people would still need to check before declaring things to be a lie, or else they have to roll back when proven wrong.
From Vermont, the only one who knows the value in dressing for the weather, rather than for the TV.
Burton have sold out of the jacket, and the woman who made the gloves closed her etsy store.
She's a school teacher. She made the original batch for people at her school, and Bernie was somehow involved, and she liked him, so she gave him a pair. That was back in 2016, and he's been wearing them to major outdoor events since. She is inundated with calls for mittens, but enjoys being a schoolteacher so is passing up on the offers.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
They could get on with the day-to-day business of running the country instead of investing all their energy in a divisive constitutional issue. It isn't as if we don't know what happens next.
Maybe you should be advising the Scottish people not to keep voting for them then.
Ah, but that's the central problem. The Scottish electorate has established form for voting in secessionist Governments - but when given the opportunity to vote to secede, it refused.
Broadly speaking, the history of Scottish politics over the last decade has been:
1. Vote in pro-independence Government 2. Vote No in independence plebiscite 3. Vote in pro-independence Government
It's more than a little bit odd when you look at it like that.
Italy has announced it will take legal action against Pfizer and AstraZeneca over a delay in the distribution of vaccines.
Both companies have warned they will not be able to deliver vaccines to the EU as agreed due to production issues.
On Saturday a senior Italian health official warned that the country will have to rethink its vaccination programme if supply issues continue.
Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio said the aim of the legal action would be to secure the doses rather than to seek damages.
"We are working so our vaccine plan programme does not change. We are activating all channels so the EU Commission does all it can to make these gentlemen respect their contracts,” he told RAI state television.
The head of Italy's Higher Health Council Franco Locatelli said Pfizer deliveries were 29% lower than planned this week but the levels were expected to return to those agreed by 1 February.
Should get to over 500k today, hopefully we do that on a regular basis next week for 3-3.5m doses per week. It would completely short circuit the whole 12 week cycle slowdown that people are worried about. AZ have really smashed it, with government help.
I said something about the AZ vaccine being the real deal at the time it was first announced.
What’s annoying is I can’t find the quote to prove it using Google and I can’t be bothered to scroll through all the old threads to find it, so you’ll just have to take my word for my awesome prescience.
If you are on mobile the search function on vanilla is really quite good now. You can filter by author and date range.
It is how I keep turning up peoples' (my own included) blown predictions.
Sir, you are officially a genius. I didn’t know about that feature.
Here it is, in all its glory: If it's 90% effective on a more rigorous testing regime than the others, costs a tenth to make and can be stored in a bog-standard piece of kit without spending zillions on dry ice:
Then screw the other vaccines, this is the real deal.
It was said on here the other day that the Double Boris vaccine is also very cheap, so if it is effective, cheap and a one shot to boot, then that must be a major option moving forward presumably.
But the AZ one really does seem remarkably cheap and convenient.
Though someone else awhile back was saying that the most effective of the vaccines like Pfizer are made with more cutting edge kit, while AZ and others are made with much more bare bones techniques?
The mRNA vaccines are brand new technology, at least in the global-scale vaccination context.
I suppose the big question is whether, even though the AZ might do the job very well this time, the UK is set up to have such brand new tech in the future at least?
The UK is up with the world leaders in Synthetic Biology. US, China, Germany and UK are top 4, by some distance from the pack (OK Israel might be in there too on a much smaller scale).
The advantage of the mRNA vaccine approach is that the production process is cell-free, dependent just on reagents and enzymes. However, supply of the reagents seems to be an issue at the moment, and unless tech is discovered to stabilize the mRNA, storage of the vaccine will continue to pose logistical challenges.
My guess is that world production of reagents will now be increased massively, with non-Chinese, non-Indian sources being added as national strategic assets in order to reduce dependency on unreliable sources.
For those interested, here is a description of the production process:
"The manufacturing process begins with the generation of a plasmid DNA (pDNA) containing a DNA-dependent RNA polymerase promoter, such as T7,6 and the corresponding sequence for the mRNA construct. The pDNA is linearized to serve as a template for the DNA-dependent RNA polymerase to transcribe the mRNA, and subsequently degraded by a DNase process step. The addition of the 5′ cap and the 3′ poly(A) tail can be achieved during the in vitro transcription step7,8 or enzymatically after transcription.9 Enzymatic addition of the cap can be accomplished by using guanylyl transferase and 2′-O-methyltransferase to yield a Cap 0 (N7MeGpppN) or Cap 1 (N7MeGpppN2′-OMe) structure, respectively, while the poly-A tail can be achieved through enzymatic addition via poly-A polymerase.
"Purification is a crucial next step, which can be achieved with the application of high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC).10 The resultant drug substance is then formulated into drug product and released based on sterility, identity, purity, and potency testing. These processes allow Good Manufacturing Practise (GMPs) facilities to switch to a new vaccine within a very short period of time, given that the reaction materials and vessels are the same."
I do thank you for that, though as with most things techincal or scientific I don't really feel like I understand it any better even after reading the explanation
Here are the SNP’s results in Scottish elections at Westminster since they were founded.
No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats
Third Third
Fourth Fourth Fourth Fourth
Third Third Third Third
First First First
I think that's what one would call an upward trend.
I'm surprised* a Scotch expert is ignorant of the SNP's first by election victory in 1945.
*not surprised
This was about results in generals, not by-elections though. DId they win any in those he has listed as 'no seats'?
Scottish by elections for Westminster aren't 'results in Scottish elections at Westminster'? There are obviously nuances in the world beating British parliamentary system of which this provincial is unaware.
TRULY SHOCKING thing about the (alleged) photo of BoJo taking Joe's phone call, is the total, indeed glaring absence of any bust or other tribute, memento, etc., etc. in honor of WINSTON CHURCHILL.
Sure, we know that the PM has NEVER had any use for Franklin Roosevelt, due to FDR's failure to say "aye, ready, aye" in support of Britain's war effort in the fall of 1939, OR in the spring of 1940. Thus his refusal to display a bust of FDR.
But surely he could pay some respect to his (alleged) hero and role model, WSC? Mr. Johnson, have you no shame?!?
Italy has announced it will take legal action against Pfizer and AstraZeneca over a delay in the distribution of vaccines.
Both companies have warned they will not be able to deliver vaccines to the EU as agreed due to production issues.
On Saturday a senior Italian health official warned that the country will have to rethink its vaccination programme if supply issues continue.
Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio said the aim of the legal action would be to secure the doses rather than to seek damages.
"We are working so our vaccine plan programme does not change. We are activating all channels so the EU Commission does all it can to make these gentlemen respect their contracts,” he told RAI state television.
The head of Italy's Higher Health Council Franco Locatelli said Pfizer deliveries were 29% lower than planned this week but the levels were expected to return to those agreed by 1 February.
How?!
If they have fewer supplies to deliver the only way to secure the intended amount to Italy would be to divert supplies (already reduced) to others surely.
Also, 'these gentlemen'? Sexist, are all corporate entities men?
We need to remember local deals, such as the Greens stepping aside in Oxford West. If that is repeated next election, that could easily turn Con Gain in LD Hold.
You are assuming everyone voted for the ‘Remain Alliance’ candidate when told to.
I’m not sure that is the case.
Well, on a personal view I’m sure it isn’t. I was going to vote Liberal Democrat but I tore up my ballot paper when they withdrew rather than vote for the Green candidate.
"could" is not the same as "will". I've no doubt that some tactical alliances are off-putting to some people. But I find it plausible that more Green voters would break LD than Conservative, and that could be the difference in a tight seat. I'm not making any predictions at this stage, I'm just saying that local factors can work across national trends.
I find it plausible that they just wouldn’t vote instead.
Just as while adding the Brexit vote to the Tory vote in red wall seats would have caused Labour the most catastrophic collapse of an opposition party since 1929, I am quite sure that a sufficient number of Brexit voters would simply have abstained instead to discount it.
I'm 100% certain that some people will abstain, and some people will follow the recommended tactical vote, and some people will say bugger this and do what they like. I'm also certain that it will be a net positive for the LD in this case. A Green staying at home isn't going to change the result. But a Green voting LD or Con could.
Or we could have an electoral system where everyone's vote counted.
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
Drakeford is bilingual.
Johnson speaks a great many languages.
Sturgeon so far as I know only speaks English.
I’m not sure your premise is valid...
Edit - doesn’t Paul Davies speak Welsh as his first language as well?
I was more thinking that Canada could never get someone as grossly ignorant as Trump -- because the Canadian PM has to be bilingual.
Johnson, Drakeford & Paul Davies all have serious flaws as politicians, but they are intellectual giants compared to an ignoramus like Tump.
It's actually a very good point and it can be broadened to render it even more effective. If we restrict high political office to those who can speak at least one foreign language AND can play a musical instrument (other than drums) this would at a stroke protect us from the worst of the right wing populist types.
On topic, excellent first time header @tlg86. Suspect you are right that tactical alignment towards the next election has not kicked in yet (and the lack of local elections in COVID might also feed into that), but maybe the level of polarisation at 2019 might also not lend itself to strong incumbency signals.
And though we know some of the tectonics - Brexit, post-COVID realities-, it is even more difficult than usual to understand what the landscape of 2024 is likely to.look like in the current stasis. With little idea even of the game, why would you get to the tactics.
Thank you, that's very kind. Yes, it really is difficult to know quite how things will play out.
On tactical voting, it occurs to me that a fair number of people don't think about it until close to the election simply because they don't know where they'll be living in 2024. Sure, people are asked "if there's an election tomorrow..." but I suspect a lot don't think about their own seat too much.
Italy has announced it will take legal action against Pfizer and AstraZeneca over a delay in the distribution of vaccines.
Both companies have warned they will not be able to deliver vaccines to the EU as agreed due to production issues.
On Saturday a senior Italian health official warned that the country will have to rethink its vaccination programme if supply issues continue.
Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio said the aim of the legal action would be to secure the doses rather than to seek damages.
"We are working so our vaccine plan programme does not change. We are activating all channels so the EU Commission does all it can to make these gentlemen respect their contracts,” he told RAI state television.
The head of Italy's Higher Health Council Franco Locatelli said Pfizer deliveries were 29% lower than planned this week but the levels were expected to return to those agreed by 1 February.
How?!
If they have fewer supplies to deliver the only way to secure the intended amount to Italy would be to divert supplies (already reduced) to others surely.
Also, 'these gentlemen'? Sexist, are all corporate entities men?
Its the equivalent of sitting in a traffic jam smashing the horn of your car.
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
Drakeford is bilingual.
Johnson speaks a great many languages.
Sturgeon so far as I know only speaks English.
I’m not sure your premise is valid...
Edit - doesn’t Paul Davies speak Welsh as his first language as well?
I was more thinking that Canada could never get someone as grossly ignorant as Trump -- because the Canadian PM has to be bilingual.
Johnson, Drakeford & Paul Davies all have serious flaws as politicians, but they are intellectual giants compared to an ignoramus like Tump.
It's actually a very good point and it can be broadened to render it even more effective. If we restrict high political office to those who can speak at least one foreign language AND can play a musical instrument (other than drums) this would at a stroke protect us from the worst of the right wing populist types.
But not from Boris Johnson, who is the most pressing issue on that front right now.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
They could get on with the day-to-day business of running the country instead of investing all their energy in a divisive constitutional issue. It isn't as if we don't know what happens next.
Maybe you should be advising the Scottish people not to keep voting for them then.
Ah, but that's the central problem. The Scottish electorate has established form for voting in secessionist Governments - but when given the opportunity to vote to secede, it refused.
Broadly speaking, the history of Scottish politics over the last decade has been:
1. Vote in pro-independence Government 2. Vote No in independence plebiscite 3. Vote in pro-independence Government
It's more than a little bit odd when you look at it like that.
It isn't really that odd. You vote against Indy because it's not a good idea, but you vote SNP because you want Scotland's interests to be defended aggressively and that cannot really be achieved by voting for a Scotland branch of a UK party. There is no Scottish DUP - if there were, it might become quite powerful.
Mr. T, the answer to your first question is that he doesn't understand how mirrors work. That's quite high on the thicky-o-meter.
The answer to your second may be that God moves in mysterious ways. And has a perverse sense of humour.
He clearly does not recognize when he is making a fool of himself in the presence of a far better-informed authority, and hence when it is time to shut up, listen and learn. That is the first rule of bullshitting, so he's not even good at that.
Yes.
It reminds me of a manager I worked for. A lawyer by training, he assumed that everything could be reduced to legal principles. Also that he was a philosopher king.
When introduced to new concepts he would often get the wrong end of the stick. And hold onto it with a grip like death.
He tried to run a campaign to stamp out time-wasting by developers. Said time wasting was writing unit tests* for code. Since the tests didn't go into production, they were obviously not needed. Hence a waste of time.
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
Drakeford is bilingual.
Johnson speaks a great many languages.
Sturgeon so far as I know only speaks English.
I’m not sure your premise is valid...
Edit - doesn’t Paul Davies speak Welsh as his first language as well?
I was more thinking that Canada could never get someone as grossly ignorant as Trump -- because the Canadian PM has to be bilingual.
Johnson, Drakeford & Paul Davies all have serious flaws as politicians, but they are intellectual giants compared to an ignoramus like Tump.
It's actually a very good point and it can be broadened to render it even more effective. If we restrict high political office to those who can speak at least one foreign language AND can play a musical instrument (other than drums) this would at a stroke protect us from the worst of the right wing populist types.
Doesn't the Boris speak decent French, and of course the old Latin / Greek, and I think he can play a couple of instruments (badly).
I believe Farage speaks fluent German...no idea if he can tinkle the ivories.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
So you're saying an 'illegal' referendum could take place? A shocking disregard for upholding the rule of law.
Even Madrid could not stop the illegal Catalan referendum taking place and the nationalists won it with most Unionists boycotting it.
However once it had taken place Madrid simply ignored the result, suspended the Catalan Parliament and ordered the arrest of Catalan nationalist leaders for holding an illegal referendum without the consent of the central government
I think you need to learn what nationalist means in Spanish.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
They could get on with the day-to-day business of running the country instead of investing all their energy in a divisive constitutional issue. It isn't as if we don't know what happens next.
Maybe you should be advising the Scottish people not to keep voting for them then.
Ah, but that's the central problem. The Scottish electorate has established form for voting in secessionist Governments - but when given the opportunity to vote to secede, it refused.
Broadly speaking, the history of Scottish politics over the last decade has been:
1. Vote in pro-independence Government 2. Vote No in independence plebiscite 3. Vote in pro-independence Government
It's more than a little bit odd when you look at it like that.
It isn't really that odd. You vote against Indy because it's not a good idea, but you vote SNP because you want Scotland's interests to be defended aggressively and that cannot really be achieved by voting for a Scotland branch of a UK party. There is no Scottish DUP - if there were, it might become quite powerful.
It is not uncommon, around the world, for people to vote for pro-independence parties as their state/local government, yet not vote for independence in referenda.
Should get to over 500k today, hopefully we do that on a regular basis next week for 3-3.5m doses per week. It would completely short circuit the whole 12 week cycle slowdown that people are worried about. AZ have really smashed it, with government help.
I said something about the AZ vaccine being the real deal at the time it was first announced.
What’s annoying is I can’t find the quote to prove it using Google and I can’t be bothered to scroll through all the old threads to find it, so you’ll just have to take my word for my awesome prescience.
If you are on mobile the search function on vanilla is really quite good now. You can filter by author and date range.
It is how I keep turning up peoples' (my own included) blown predictions.
Sir, you are officially a genius. I didn’t know about that feature.
Here it is, in all its glory: If it's 90% effective on a more rigorous testing regime than the others, costs a tenth to make and can be stored in a bog-standard piece of kit without spending zillions on dry ice:
Then screw the other vaccines, this is the real deal.
It was said on here the other day that the Double Boris vaccine is also very cheap, so if it is effective, cheap and a one shot to boot, then that must be a major option moving forward presumably.
But the AZ one really does seem remarkably cheap and convenient.
Though someone else awhile back was saying that the most effective of the vaccines like Pfizer are made with more cutting edge kit, while AZ and others are made with much more bare bones techniques?
The mRNA vaccines are brand new technology, at least in the global-scale vaccination context.
I suppose the big question is whether, even though the AZ might do the job very well this time, the UK is set up to have such brand new tech in the future at least?
The UK is up with the world leaders in Synthetic Biology. US, China, Germany and UK are top 4, by some distance from the pack (OK Israel might be in there too on a much smaller scale).
The advantage of the mRNA vaccine approach is that the production process is cell-free, dependent just on reagents and enzymes. However, supply of the reagents seems to be an issue at the moment, and unless tech is discovered to stabilize the mRNA, storage of the vaccine will continue to pose logistical challenges.
My guess is that world production of reagents will now be increased massively, with non-Chinese, non-Indian sources being added as national strategic assets in order to reduce dependency on unreliable sources.
For those interested, here is a description of the production process:
"The manufacturing process begins with the generation of a plasmid DNA (pDNA) containing a DNA-dependent RNA polymerase promoter, such as T7,6 and the corresponding sequence for the mRNA construct. The pDNA is linearized to serve as a template for the DNA-dependent RNA polymerase to transcribe the mRNA, and subsequently degraded by a DNase process step. The addition of the 5′ cap and the 3′ poly(A) tail can be achieved during the in vitro transcription step7,8 or enzymatically after transcription.9 Enzymatic addition of the cap can be accomplished by using guanylyl transferase and 2′-O-methyltransferase to yield a Cap 0 (N7MeGpppN) or Cap 1 (N7MeGpppN2′-OMe) structure, respectively, while the poly-A tail can be achieved through enzymatic addition via poly-A polymerase.
"Purification is a crucial next step, which can be achieved with the application of high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC).10 The resultant drug substance is then formulated into drug product and released based on sterility, identity, purity, and potency testing. These processes allow Good Manufacturing Practise (GMPs) facilities to switch to a new vaccine within a very short period of time, given that the reaction materials and vessels are the same."
I do thank you for that, though as with most things techincal or scientific I don't really feel like I understand it any better even after reading the explanation
Plainspeak (IIUIC) 1. Create a ring of DNA (a plasmid) that codes for the mRNA you want (which in turn codes for a protein from the virus that will launch in immune response to the virus) and the enzyme to turn that DNA sequence into mRNA copies 2. Add an enzyme to open up the plasmid (ring of DNA) into a linear DNA sequence 3. Add reagents (containing the basic A, C, G, T building blocks of nucleic acids) 4. Add an enzyme to snip the produced mRNA into correct lengths 5. Add enzymes to add caps and tails to the mRNA 6. Purify, etc...
When the pull tab was first introduced, they had a wicked tendency to slice your fingers if you let them get in the way.
Also remember the "new" Coors beer cans back in the early 1970s, which featured not only a pull tab but also a small round hole to punch in, to help equalize the pressure when you drank the contents.
BTW, what they've done for pull tabs, is VERY similar to analyzing and dating different varieties of barbed wire.
The quote in the lead from the BBC ‘the project’ brought back memories.
The Tories in my London ward were always telling me that my seat was ‘on loan’, and they’d win it back next time. During my first campaign I canvassed the house of the local Tory ward chairman (back when I was young and fearless), and she told me she couldn’t understand why I was spending so much time campaigning because she knew that we would never win her ward.
On the way into the count in 1994, the Tory agent told me my campaigning had been a waste of time as their figures showed they had held the seat. Yet I won by over a thousand (which is a lot).
After that count they advised me to enjoy the next four years as the seat was on loan and they’d win it back next time. Which they didn’t.
In the council chamber each time the election approached I’d hear the same lines from the Tories, yet would be re-elected. During the coalition both Tory and Labour councillors took pleasure in predicting we’d all lose our seats in 2014, yet we did manage to hang on, just.
The Tories never gave up their imagined ‘ownership’ of my ward despite LibDems representing it for a full twenty four years.
On the other hand, as far as the national picture is concerned, Tony Blair told his party as far back as 2001 that the Tories were not dead, but 'only sleeping'. And as it turns out, their vote share has increased at every single general election since he uttered those words...
So if Blair said in 2001 that the Tories were "only sleeping", I assume that since then they have woke?
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
Drakeford is bilingual.
Johnson speaks a great many languages.
Sturgeon so far as I know only speaks English.
I’m not sure your premise is valid...
Edit - doesn’t Paul Davies speak Welsh as his first language as well?
I was more thinking that Canada could never get someone as grossly ignorant as Trump -- because the Canadian PM has to be bilingual.
Johnson, Drakeford & Paul Davies all have serious flaws as politicians, but they are intellectual giants compared to an ignoramus like Tump.
It's actually a very good point and it can be broadened to render it even more effective. If we restrict high political office to those who can speak at least one foreign language AND can play a musical instrument (other than drums) this would at a stroke protect us from the worst of the right wing populist types.
But not from Boris Johnson, who is the most pressing issue on that front right now.
Just when one thought Welsh politics couldn't become any more third world, and up again pops RT. I can't think of anyone else who could, by comparison, make Drakeford appear presidential.
Here are the SNP’s results in Scottish elections at Westminster since they were founded.
No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats No seats
Third Third
Fourth Fourth Fourth Fourth
Third Third Third Third
First First First
I think that's what one would call an upward trend.
I'm surprised* a Scotch expert is ignorant of the SNP's first by election victory in 1945.
*not surprised
This was about results in generals, not by-elections though. DId they win any in those he has listed as 'no seats'?
Scottish by elections for Westminster aren't 'results in Scottish elections at Westminster'? There are obviously nuances in the world beating British parliamentary system of which this provincial is unaware.
I am surprised you of all people are digging in on this, and going the fakey nationalist grievance route.
There was a post about 'Labour's general election' results in the last 42 years.
There was then a post in reply about 'Tories' ge results' in the last 60 years.
There was then a post about scottish elections at Westminster in reply to that.
It is pretty obvious what ydoethur meant despite omitting the word GE. He said 'Can anyone play? in reply to the first two, so was clearly responding in the same terms despite his own descriptor missing the GE label.
I'd believe this was just classic PB pedantry except you suggested it was about ignorance even though I think we can all tell what was meant.
TRULY SHOCKING thing about the (alleged) photo of BoJo taking Joe's phone call, is the total, indeed glaring absence of any bust or other tribute, memento, etc., etc. in honor of WINSTON CHURCHILL.
Sure, we know that the PM has NEVER had any use for Franklin Roosevelt, due to FDR's failure to say "aye, ready, aye" in support of Britain's war effort in the fall of 1939, OR in the spring of 1940. Thus his refusal to display a bust of FDR.
But surely he could pay some respect to his (alleged) hero and role model, WSC? Mr. Johnson, have you no shame?!?
Possibly the most cringeworthy episode in our history was that manufactured outrage about a foreign leader's choice of office ornamentation. It's only rivalled by HYUFD's excruciatingly embarrasing insistence that US Presidents of English descent are nicer to us...conveniently ignoring the fact that Washington and Madison were both of English descent.
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
Drakeford is bilingual.
Johnson speaks a great many languages.
Sturgeon so far as I know only speaks English.
I’m not sure your premise is valid...
Edit - doesn’t Paul Davies speak Welsh as his first language as well?
I was more thinking that Canada could never get someone as grossly ignorant as Trump -- because the Canadian PM has to be bilingual.
Johnson, Drakeford & Paul Davies all have serious flaws as politicians, but they are intellectual giants compared to an ignoramus like Tump.
It's actually a very good point and it can be broadened to render it even more effective. If we restrict high political office to those who can speak at least one foreign language AND can play a musical instrument (other than drums) this would at a stroke protect us from the worst of the right wing populist types.
But not from Boris Johnson, who is the most pressing issue on that front right now.
Does he tinkle the ivories?
Wasn't aware he did.
"Boris Johnson learnt to play the trombone at school and started piano lessons at 17. He says he plays On Top of Old Smokey and When the Saints Go Marching In on his piano at home.".
The Prime Minister and partner Carrie Symonds have taken delivery of a piano. The upright instrument was brought into Downing Street to be placed in their official residence.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
No, it would just be an illegal referendum Unionists boycott, as per Catalonia
When you say "illegal", what do you mean?
Do you mean ultra vires and would be restrained via judicial review, or do you mean that it would literally be an offence?
Well, one issue with this plan is that we don’t know.
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
What other strategy is there? If they are elected to secure independence, what more can they do?
They could get on with the day-to-day business of running the country instead of investing all their energy in a divisive constitutional issue. It isn't as if we don't know what happens next.
Maybe you should be advising the Scottish people not to keep voting for them then.
Ah, but that's the central problem. The Scottish electorate has established form for voting in secessionist Governments - but when given the opportunity to vote to secede, it refused.
Broadly speaking, the history of Scottish politics over the last decade has been:
1. Vote in pro-independence Government 2. Vote No in independence plebiscite 3. Vote in pro-independence Government
It's more than a little bit odd when you look at it like that.
I think the plebiscite in 2. would have had to have happened more than once to draw any portentous conclusions about 'the history of Scottish politics' or 'established form'.
Horse X baulked at the second fence at Aintree first time out, though it came second. Its recent form has been strong but we must assume it will still baulk at the second fence and come second in the upcoming 'Don't by the Scum' stakes.
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
Drakeford is bilingual.
Johnson speaks a great many languages.
Sturgeon so far as I know only speaks English.
I’m not sure your premise is valid...
Edit - doesn’t Paul Davies speak Welsh as his first language as well?
I was more thinking that Canada could never get someone as grossly ignorant as Trump -- because the Canadian PM has to be bilingual.
Johnson, Drakeford & Paul Davies all have serious flaws as politicians, but they are intellectual giants compared to an ignoramus like Tump.
It's actually a very good point and it can be broadened to render it even more effective. If we restrict high political office to those who can speak at least one foreign language AND can play a musical instrument (other than drums) this would at a stroke protect us from the worst of the right wing populist types.
Doesn't the Boris speak decent French, and of course the old Latin / Greek, and I think he can play a couple of instruments (badly).
I believe Farage speaks fluent German...no idea if he can tinkle the ivories.
Well TBF we're not talking about Johnson. He's not a fascist. He's every other possible bad thing except for that.
Farage? No way he has he tickled any ivories unless maybe forced to have a few lessons at Dulwich College.
Comments
It’s clearly ultra vires under the law as it stands, because the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to legislate on constitutional matters and a referendum on independence is clearly a constitutional matter. Moreover, having failed to hold one when first May and then Johnson refused it and having used a section 30 order for the 2014 referendum, they have effectively conceded that argument.
A more risky problem with this is, if it is ultra vires and they try to go ahead anyway, are they then guilty of misappropriation of public funds? And if so, might the reaction of the Westminster government be to bring criminal charges? Johnson and Braverman are more than nasty enough to try.
So it seems to me a high risk strategy, possibly born more of the need to distract attention from Salmond”s increasingly lurid claims by throwing red meat to his nuttier supporters, the likes of Cherry and BS for Scotland. If it’s serious at all, of course.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-55781951
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Sub section B, Holyrood
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
In that time the Tories will have had Thatcher, Major, Cameron and Johnson, plus May as the largest party.
But it’s interesting that we have a similar problem to the US - albeit less extreme.
I've been reading into the Scotland Act this afternoon. The general principle is that "everything is devolved unless reserved".
So the question for the courts may very well be whether an "opinion" poll of the nation on independence is a reserved power under Schedule 5.
It certainly wouldn't be binding in any case but nobody is saying it would be, at least in law.
https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1352385125603012637?s=20
So, to get the Supreme Court to "strike down" an advisory referendum, as you so quaintly put it then, I think, the UK Government would have to appliy for an interdict from the Court of Session and, if they refused it, appeal it up to the Supreme Court. If the SNP refused to abide by an interdict that would be, presumably, a contempt. It's a brave man to suggest the Court of Session would seek to intervene in an advisory referendum and an even braver man to say that the Supreme Court would definately overturn any refusal. An advisory referendum is little more than an opinion poll.
Here are the SNP’s results in Scottish elections at Westminster since they were founded.
No seats
No seats
No seats
No seats
No seats
No seats
No seats
No seats
Third
Third
Fourth
Fourth
Fourth
Fourth
Third
Third
Third
Third
First
First
First
The advantage of the mRNA vaccine approach is that the production process is cell-free, dependent just on reagents and enzymes. However, supply of the reagents seems to be an issue at the moment, and unless tech is discovered to stabilize the mRNA, storage of the vaccine will continue to pose logistical challenges.
My guess is that world production of reagents will now be increased massively, with non-Chinese, non-Indian sources being added as national strategic assets in order to reduce dependency on unreliable sources.
For those interested, here is a description of the production process:
"The manufacturing process begins with the generation of a plasmid DNA (pDNA) containing a DNA-dependent RNA polymerase promoter, such as T7,6 and the corresponding sequence for the mRNA construct. The pDNA is linearized to serve as a template for the DNA-dependent RNA polymerase to transcribe the mRNA, and subsequently degraded by a DNase process step. The addition of the 5′ cap and the 3′ poly(A) tail can be achieved during the in vitro transcription step7,8 or enzymatically after transcription.9 Enzymatic addition of the cap can be accomplished by using guanylyl transferase and 2′-O-methyltransferase to yield a Cap 0 (N7MeGpppN) or Cap 1 (N7MeGpppN2′-OMe) structure, respectively, while the poly-A tail can be achieved through enzymatic addition via poly-A polymerase.
"Purification is a crucial next step, which can be achieved with the application of high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC).10 The resultant drug substance is then formulated into drug product and released based on sterility, identity, purity, and potency testing. These processes allow Good Manufacturing Practise (GMPs) facilities to switch to a new vaccine within a very short period of time, given that the reaction materials and vessels are the same."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-020-0159-8
But it does what it does very well indeed.
https://twitter.com/search?q=#FeelTheBern&src=typeahead_click
After all, I could be elected on a promise to make everyone a millionaire, to stop the Uigher genocide and make the world disarm all nuclear weapons, but that doesn’t mean I’d have the power to make it happen.
https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1353325591433539587
I'm surprised* a Scotch expert is ignorant of the SNP's first by election victory in 1945.
*not surprised
So things can change very suddenly.
Not that I expect them to, if only because certain SNP supporters seem to have a positively Trumpian attitude towards inconvenient facts at the moment, But they can.
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
It's that everything he says is a lie.
Fuelled by Britain’s appetite for bingeing on new shows during the pandemic, the number of UK subscribers to the main three streaming services is now approximately 32m – double that of traditional pay-TV companies such as Sky, BT and Virgin Media.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/24/sky-uk-boosts-original-content-as-it-takes-on-streaming-rivals
And though we know some of the tectonics - Brexit, post-COVID realities-, it is even more difficult than usual to understand what the landscape of 2024 is likely to.look like in the current stasis. With little idea even of the game, why would you get to the tactics.
I'm still expecting a last minute deferral, maybe in late December, but the government have already held firmer than I thought they would.
WTAF were they thinking?
This is also a detailed and very good account of the process:
https://blog.jonasneubert.com/2021/01/10/exploring-the-supply-chain-of-the-pfizer-biontech-and-moderna-covid-19-vaccines/
Assume it has a good chance of being a lie, sure, but people would still need to check before declaring things to be a lie, or else they have to roll back when proven wrong.
Broadly speaking, the history of Scottish politics over the last decade has been:
1. Vote in pro-independence Government
2. Vote No in independence plebiscite
3. Vote in pro-independence Government
It's more than a little bit odd when you look at it like that.
Both companies have warned they will not be able to deliver vaccines to the EU as agreed due to production issues.
On Saturday a senior Italian health official warned that the country will have to rethink its vaccination programme if supply issues continue.
Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio said the aim of the legal action would be to secure the doses rather than to seek damages.
"We are working so our vaccine plan programme does not change. We are activating all channels so the EU Commission does all it can to make these gentlemen respect their contracts,” he told RAI state television.
The head of Italy's Higher Health Council Franco Locatelli said Pfizer deliveries were 29% lower than planned this week but the levels were expected to return to those agreed by 1 February.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meth-syndicate/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoifaIEvC0Q&t=85s
Sure, we know that the PM has NEVER had any use for Franklin Roosevelt, due to FDR's failure to say "aye, ready, aye" in support of Britain's war effort in the fall of 1939, OR in the spring of 1940. Thus his refusal to display a bust of FDR.
But surely he could pay some respect to his (alleged) hero and role model, WSC? Mr. Johnson, have you no shame?!?
If they have fewer supplies to deliver the only way to secure the intended amount to Italy would be to divert supplies (already reduced) to others surely.
Also, 'these gentlemen'? Sexist, are all corporate entities men?
We might call it "democracy".
On tactical voting, it occurs to me that a fair number of people don't think about it until close to the election simply because they don't know where they'll be living in 2024. Sure, people are asked "if there's an election tomorrow..." but I suspect a lot don't think about their own seat too much.
It reminds me of a manager I worked for. A lawyer by training, he assumed that everything could be reduced to legal principles. Also that he was a philosopher king.
When introduced to new concepts he would often get the wrong end of the stick. And hold onto it with a grip like death.
He tried to run a campaign to stamp out time-wasting by developers. Said time wasting was writing unit tests* for code. Since the tests didn't go into production, they were obviously not needed. Hence a waste of time.
Thast doesn't follow at all - you are interpreting data for a three choice question as if applied to a two choice one.
I believe Farage speaks fluent German...no idea if he can tinkle the ivories.
1. Create a ring of DNA (a plasmid) that codes for the mRNA you want (which in turn codes for a protein from the virus that will launch in immune response to the virus) and the enzyme to turn that DNA sequence into mRNA copies
2. Add an enzyme to open up the plasmid (ring of DNA) into a linear DNA sequence
3. Add reagents (containing the basic A, C, G, T building blocks of nucleic acids)
4. Add an enzyme to snip the produced mRNA into correct lengths
5. Add enzymes to add caps and tails to the mRNA
6. Purify, etc...
When the pull tab was first introduced, they had a wicked tendency to slice your fingers if you let them get in the way.
Also remember the "new" Coors beer cans back in the early 1970s, which featured not only a pull tab but also a small round hole to punch in, to help equalize the pressure when you drank the contents.
BTW, what they've done for pull tabs, is VERY similar to analyzing and dating different varieties of barbed wire.
Grandma had it done weeks ago.
Wasn't aware he did.
Just when one thought Welsh politics couldn't become any more third world, and up again pops RT. I can't think of anyone else who could, by comparison, make Drakeford appear presidential.
There was a post about 'Labour's general election' results in the last 42 years.
There was then a post in reply about 'Tories' ge results' in the last 60 years.
There was then a post about scottish elections at Westminster in reply to that.
It is pretty obvious what ydoethur meant despite omitting the word GE. He said 'Can anyone play? in reply to the first two, so was clearly responding in the same terms despite his own descriptor missing the GE label.
I'd believe this was just classic PB pedantry except you suggested it was about ignorance even though I think we can all tell what was meant.
The Prime Minister and partner Carrie Symonds have taken delivery of a piano. The upright instrument was brought into Downing Street to be placed in their official residence.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2007380/Video-Piano-arrives-Downing-Street-Prime-Minister-Boris-Johnson-partner-Carrie-Symonds-home.html
Horse X baulked at the second fence at Aintree first time out, though it came second. Its recent form has been strong but we must assume it will still baulk at the second fence and come second in the upcoming 'Don't by the Scum' stakes.
Farage? No way he has he tickled any ivories unless maybe forced to have a few lessons at Dulwich College.