(Gets in haggis flavoured popcorn, especially for Burns’ Night!)
If one of them has to be lying and the other telling the truth my money would be on Sturgeon doing the truth telling. She gives off to me a solid and trustworthy aroma that Salmond, for all his undoubted gifts as a politician, does not.
There speaks ignorance. Unless Aberdein lied under oath she told porkies to parliament. Also top aid asked him to change his evidence so her career was not impacted. Last gambit is they are saying the evidence cannot be used by inquiry, witholding documentation and had their lackey Lord Advocate stated that Salmond would be prosecuted if he told the truth under oath at the inquiry.
On some things, well this thing, Malcy is on the money.
A referendum which isn't legally authorised and internationally recognised is absolutely no use at all for the Nats, except to further stoke the already well-stoked grievance machine. They must know this, so there's a huge amount of bluster here.
From the point of view of the Conservative government, I really can't see any upside to agreeing the referendum. Better to say No, ignore the fuss, and leave it to the next Labour PM to impale himself or herself on the spike.
If its authorised by the Scottish Parliament - and if the Scottish Parliament has the legal authority to authorise it - then how is that not legally authorised?
The UK has a proud history of respecting democracy. Is the union more important than that?
I'm looking at it from the point of view of the politics, not the rights and wrongs.
However, the UK government has a very strong argument that we've just had a Scottish independence referendum. I seem to recall that you thought a second Brexit referendum would be an outrage; same principle applies, surely?
The politics of refusing a second referendum if a majority of Scots vote for it in May troubles me greatly. It could prove to be a catastrophic strategic error. I would very much prefer that Scots are encouraged to be careful what they wish for by making it clear such a demand will be respected.
Boris Johnson has hinted that the Government will be "looking at the potential of relaxing some measures", before mid- February.
The Prime Minister said that the Government was "looking at the data as it comes in", and then added that "before then we'll be looking at the potential of relaxing some measures".
However No 10 pushed back against Mr Johnson's words and said that the 15th of February "remains the earliest point at which we could change any of the rules".
I think JOhnson is wrong to consider relaxation on February but he did say "looking at" relaxing before that date rather than saying he actually would.
Oh, for God's sake. We have had enough government by hint and kite-flying. Until you've decided what needs to be done, STFU. When you've decided, JFDI. Sorry to be vulgar, but really...
Boris needs to say NOW:
- we are not relaxing anything before 1 April - we will publish a plan in March but implementation will be dependent on how the situation (hopefully) improves - the approach will be cautious
Remember when you had a meltdown about Sadiq Khan wanting to increase the lockdown level in London?
I don't think I have ever had a meltdown on here. I am Mr Cool!
(Gets in haggis flavoured popcorn, especially for Burns’ Night!)
If one of them has to be lying and the other telling the truth my money would be on Sturgeon doing the truth telling. She gives off to me a solid and trustworthy aroma that Salmond, for all his undoubted gifts as a politician, does not.
Except...what is in it for Salmond if he is lying? He is certainly coming across as seriously aggrieved by something.
If someone tried to get you 12 years in jail when you are completely innocent , would you not be just a little bit miffed.
Well, probably yes.
But I'm not quite sure that applies in this case...
you missed the verdict then
No, and nor did I miss his rather damning testimony where he basically admitted 90% of what was complained of was true, but denied it amounted to sexual misconduct.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
I really welcome the opportunity to have a discussion about the legalities of a Scottish Independence referendum. I feel it is a topic too often ignored on these boards.
I'm hoping to do a piece on electoral reform this weekend.
EU are acting like your stereotypical chav on a summer holiday in Europe.....SPEAKKKKKKK ENGLISH.....DO YOU SPEAKKKKKKKK ENGLISH...I DON'T KNOW WHY WE COME HERE, THEY ARE SO F##KING SLOW....LOOK, LOOK OVER THERE, THEY ARE GETTING SERVED BEFORE US (other customer speaks calmly in local language)...
After 5 mins, lardy realises the sign he is standing under says queue at other till.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
Did it get mentioned here that Estonia has a new PM?
I think she, Kaja Kallas, is the first Prime Minister of anywhere that I've found genuinely pleasant to look at.
Have you seen Sanna Marin from Finland?
I hadn't, she's very nice looking too. But crazy young for a Prime Minister at 35!?
Kurtz in Austria has been PM since he was 30 I believe, with a brief gap.
Almost in their dotage. Baby Doc Duvalier was 19 when he took over from his father. San Marino has had 4 heads of government under 30 - the last one was last year.
Well sure, but any young idiot can take over when they have the right genes in a pseudo monarchy.
Though 19 year olds can work out - Look at Gaius Octavius.
Edward IV did OK. Edward III was only 18 when he seized power in a coup from Mortimer and his mother.
(Gets in haggis flavoured popcorn, especially for Burns’ Night!)
If one of them has to be lying and the other telling the truth my money would be on Sturgeon doing the truth telling. She gives off to me a solid and trustworthy aroma that Salmond, for all his undoubted gifts as a politician, does not.
Except...what is in it for Salmond if he is lying? He is certainly coming across as seriously aggrieved by something.
If someone tried to get you 12 years in jail when you are completely innocent , would you not be just a little bit miffed.
Well, probably yes.
But I'm not quite sure that applies in this case...
Off topic, but I always like the memory of the innocent man who was found to have been convicted due to mixed-up lab evidence and emerged from jail after 9 years.
Eager journalist: "What is your message to the man who made this disastrous error and lost you nearly a decade of your life?" Ex-prisoner: (mildly) "We all make mistakes."
I know i'm not very conventionally patriotic, but I do rather like British understatement.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
A referendum which isn't legally authorised and internationally recognised is absolutely no use at all for the Nats, except to further stoke the already well-stoked grievance machine. They must know this, so there's a huge amount of bluster here.
From the point of view of the Conservative government, I really can't see any upside to agreeing the referendum. Better to say No, ignore the fuss, and leave it to the next Labour PM to impale himself or herself on the spike.
If its authorised by the Scottish Parliament - and if the Scottish Parliament has the legal authority to authorise it - then how is that not legally authorised?
The UK has a proud history of respecting democracy. Is the union more important than that?
I'm looking at it from the point of view of the politics, not the rights and wrongs.
However, the UK government has a very strong argument that we've just had a Scottish independence referendum. I seem to recall that you thought a second Brexit referendum would be an outrage; same principle applies, surely?
You recall wrong, I never thought a second Brexit referendum would be an outrage, if there was an election mandating that.
If the Lib Dems had won the 2017 or 2019 election then they'd have been entitled to hold a second referendum if that was in their manifesto.
Holding another referendum without a general election inbetween getting a mandate to hold that referendum is an outrage.
Since the Scottish 2014 referendum there have been: 1 Brexit Referendum (won in Scotland by Remain) 1 Holyrood election (won by SNP, but they only got a majority) 3 Westminster elections (all won by the SNP)
Now there's going to be a 2nd Holyrood election. If the SNP get a majority on a mandate of holding a vote then fair enough. If in 2024 Labour of the Liberal Democrats win a majority on a mandate of a "rejoin the EU" referendum then fair enough. That is democracy.
It's reassuring that the EU has finally noticed their vaccine strategy is totally awful and has decided to do something about it.
It's a shame that their new approach involves trying to blame all the wrong people in a feeble attempt at arse covering, but at least they've realised.
A senior EU official told Reuters on Friday that deliveries of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine to the EU would be cut by 60 percent to 31 million doses in the first quarter. According to that report, AstraZeneca said that the cut was caused by "production problems" at a vaccine factory in Belgium run by its partner Novasep.
Another EU official told POLITICO that AstraZeneca is facing two issues: First, there was an issue with one of their batches that had to be thrown out. Second, the company is still sourcing raw material to ramp up manufacturing. Now, “it seems unlikely they will meet their first quarter target,” the official said.
Both issues seem to very much be unavoidable ones rather than things AZ had control over.
I really welcome the opportunity to have a discussion about the legalities of a Scottish Independence referendum. I feel it is a topic too often ignored on these boards.
I'm hoping to do a piece on electoral reform this weekend.
Are there any other, some might say alternative, voting systems available for us to consider?
D'Hondt start him.
Why not? It would represent a proportional approach.
Fecking D'Hondt is about as proportional as nuking a country to protest at a junior civil servant making an ill-advised remark on Twitter.
I really welcome the opportunity to have a discussion about the legalities of a Scottish Independence referendum. I feel it is a topic too often ignored on these boards.
I agree. The other thing we could discuss if anyone has any interest is Brexit maybe?
(Gets in haggis flavoured popcorn, especially for Burns’ Night!)
If one of them has to be lying and the other telling the truth my money would be on Sturgeon doing the truth telling. She gives off to me a solid and trustworthy aroma that Salmond, for all his undoubted gifts as a politician, does not.
Except...what is in it for Salmond if he is lying? He is certainly coming across as seriously aggrieved by something.
If someone tried to get you 12 years in jail when you are completely innocent , would you not be just a little bit miffed.
Well, probably yes.
But I'm not quite sure that applies in this case...
Off topic, but I always like the memory of the innocent man who was found to have been convicted due to mixed-up lab evidence and emerged from jail after 9 years.
Eager journalist: "What is your message to the man who made this disastrous error and lost you nearly a decade of your life?" Ex-prisoner: (mildly) "We all make mistakes."
I know i'm not very conventionally patriotic, but I do rather like British understatement.
It's seems not wholly unusual for people released after decades in prison on false convictions to talk about thanking god and the like. My natural reaction is that seems strange, after having suffered so unjustly, but it gets people through great trials there's no question!
Boris Johnson has hinted that the Government will be "looking at the potential of relaxing some measures", before mid- February.
The Prime Minister said that the Government was "looking at the data as it comes in", and then added that "before then we'll be looking at the potential of relaxing some measures".
However No 10 pushed back against Mr Johnson's words and said that the 15th of February "remains the earliest point at which we could change any of the rules".
I think JOhnson is wrong to consider relaxation on February but he did say "looking at" relaxing before that date rather than saying he actually would.
Oh, for God's sake. We have had enough government by hint and kite-flying. Until you've decided what needs to be done, STFU. When you've decided, JFDI. Sorry to be vulgar, but really...
Boris needs to say NOW:
- we are not relaxing anything before 1 April - we will publish a plan in March but implementation will be dependent on how the situation (hopefully) improves - the approach will be cautious
Seems sensible.
As others have mentioned, all credit to you for having had an open mind, and changed it, on this. I remember the days when your anti-lockdown comments seemed to revolve around your user name, in that you asserted your right to go around all the London pubs whatever disease may be frolicking around. So good on you. (Mind you, I also vaguely remember you as a London Tory, so I doubt I'd agree with you on much else!). And I really miss the pub too.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
(Gets in haggis flavoured popcorn, especially for Burns’ Night!)
If one of them has to be lying and the other telling the truth my money would be on Sturgeon doing the truth telling. She gives off to me a solid and trustworthy aroma that Salmond, for all his undoubted gifts as a politician, does not.
Except...what is in it for Salmond if he is lying? He is certainly coming across as seriously aggrieved by something.
What's in it for him? A return to what he considers his rightful place perhaps.
You're clearly not following this, which is fine, but Salmond isn't lying. I don't even think anyone has seriously accused him of it. It's between whether Sturgeon can sort of fudge and brazen out the fact that she misled the Scottish Parliament, or she can't.
A blood mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on 35% turnout would be my guess.
Yeah, sounds plausible, although I suspect turnout would be lower.
The last thing the SNP want is for the election to be about education etc. hence ramping up Indy. Placates the hard-core (and there is definitely a party management issue in play) and distracts from what appears to be a less than impressive performance on the vaccination roll-out. Also they may be slightly (very slightly) concerned about SLAB coming back to life under Sarwar. Making everything about Indy is the best way of stifling a Labour revival.
LOL, another Scotch expert talks utter mince.
Well you're no Scotland expert either.
I remember when Alastair Meeks tipped the SNP to lose their majority (10/1 and 8/1 on the election day 2016) you said people were losing their money.
The same thing you said when people were backing No in 2014.
Ditto when some people backed the Tories to win 10 plus seats in 2017.
(Gets in haggis flavoured popcorn, especially for Burns’ Night!)
If one of them has to be lying and the other telling the truth my money would be on Sturgeon doing the truth telling. She gives off to me a solid and trustworthy aroma that Salmond, for all his undoubted gifts as a politician, does not.
There speaks ignorance. Unless Aberdein lied under oath she told porkies to parliament. Also top aid asked him to change his evidence so her career was not impacted. Last gambit is they are saying the evidence cannot be used by inquiry, witholding documentation and had their lackey Lord Advocate stated that Salmond would be prosecuted if he told the truth under oath at the inquiry.
On some things, well this thing, Malcy is on the money.
Yes - I was, to put it mildly, sceptical of his "Salmond Stitch Up" claims - but the evidence for it does appear to be accumulating.....
A blood mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on 35% turnout would be my guess.
Yeah, sounds plausible, although I suspect turnout would be lower.
The last thing the SNP want is for the election to be about education etc. hence ramping up Indy. Placates the hard-core (and there is definitely a party management issue in play) and distracts from what appears to be a less than impressive performance on the vaccination roll-out. Also they may be slightly (very slightly) concerned about SLAB coming back to life under Sarwar. Making everything about Indy is the best way of stifling a Labour revival.
LOL, another Scotch expert talks utter mince.
Well you're no Scotland expert either.
I remember when Alastair Meeks tipped the SNP to lose their majority (10/1 and 8/1 on the election day 2016) you said people were losing their money.
The same thing you said when people were backing No in 2014.
Ditto when some people backed the Tories to win 10 plus seats in 2017.
Looks like our SCotch experts need a rethink already
Apparently Scottish Labour and the Liberal Democrat’s will not support Douglas Ross in a desire to boycott Indyref. This would be a major blow for the Tories. It would leave them Isolated amongst Unionist peers. Major frictions between Unionists will become apparent!
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
Scottish police, not British forces (as they did in Spain, sending national forces to break up the referendum by force).
The case data looks really positive today, even taking into account it's a weekend figure. Was expecting ~28k according to the algorithm so coming in at 22k is definitely a big positive. The rate of contraction is actually increasing at the moment, the R value is going down again, which is impressive after this long being under 1.
Add in the effects of vaccination over the coming two weeks and we should actually start to see some really big strides in the hospitalisation rate falling and pressure on the NHS drop considerably.
I have a slight suspicion that the vaccination of front line NHS is starting to pay off. A lot of infections have been hospital acquired (not blaming anyone - its a tricky thing to contain). If we have now vaccinated a substantial number of the front line NHS, we may be seeing less of the hospital acquired infections.
It's reassuring that the EU has finally noticed their vaccine strategy is totally awful and has decided to do something about it.
It's a shame that their new approach involves trying to blame all the wrong people in a feeble attempt at arse covering, but at least they've realised.
The EU Commission is like every government on earth - it's never their fault.
People need to rein in their hyperbole regarding trade wars. Just because something is made in this country doesn’t mean it’s not linked to the EU supply chain.
For example, it’s not uncommon for the components that go into manufacturing to go to the EU to be sterilised and then come back to be used to make or transfer product.
Likewise certain single use sensors and filters may be sourced from Germany and the Netherlands.
It’s not easy to switch suppliers quickly either as everything needs to be validated and verified.
The case data looks really positive today, even taking into account it's a weekend figure. Was expecting ~28k according to the algorithm so coming in at 22k is definitely a big positive. The rate of contraction is actually increasing at the moment, the R value is going down again, which is impressive after this long being under 1.
Add in the effects of vaccination over the coming two weeks and we should actually start to see some really big strides in the hospitalisation rate falling and pressure on the NHS drop considerably.
I have a slight suspicion that the vaccination of front line NHS is starting to pay off. A lot of infections have been hospital acquired (not blaming anyone - its a tricky thing to contain). If we have now vaccinated a substantial number of the front line NHS, we may be seeing less of the hospital acquired infections.
As with a lot of things I think you are both right and a week or 2 weeks before the impact will be really noticeable.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris and Westminster refuse to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then, even if Boris does not go as far as Rajoy and order the arrest of Sturgeon and SNP leaders and the deployment of police to try and stop the poll taking place.
Indeed, and if Scotland were to assume talks with the EU about joining as an independent country would be easy, wait until the Spanish government becomes involved! If the SNP thinks that a referendum that is boycotted by the uniionists and is unauthorised by Westminster would have international credibility, they only have to look at 2017.
Fashion retailer Boohoo has bought the Debenhams brand and website for £55m. However, it will not take on any of the firm's remaining 118 High Street stores or its workforce.
Boris Johnson has hinted that the Government will be "looking at the potential of relaxing some measures", before mid- February.
The Prime Minister said that the Government was "looking at the data as it comes in", and then added that "before then we'll be looking at the potential of relaxing some measures".
However No 10 pushed back against Mr Johnson's words and said that the 15th of February "remains the earliest point at which we could change any of the rules".
I think JOhnson is wrong to consider relaxation on February but he did say "looking at" relaxing before that date rather than saying he actually would.
Oh, for God's sake. We have had enough government by hint and kite-flying. Until you've decided what needs to be done, STFU. When you've decided, JFDI. Sorry to be vulgar, but really...
Boris needs to say NOW:
- we are not relaxing anything before 1 April - we will publish a plan in March but implementation will be dependent on how the situation (hopefully) improves - the approach will be cautious
No. It just needs to be done on evidence. Clearly won't be zero cases on say March 10th, but if there was would you be suggesting Boris must not relax before 1st April? I can understand peoples desires to know about the future, and what criteria will determine when we start to open up. I'd rather keep that for SAGE and the government to determine, without setting up targets to then get called out for.
(Gets in haggis flavoured popcorn, especially for Burns’ Night!)
If one of them has to be lying and the other telling the truth my money would be on Sturgeon doing the truth telling. She gives off to me a solid and trustworthy aroma that Salmond, for all his undoubted gifts as a politician, does not.
Except...what is in it for Salmond if he is lying? He is certainly coming across as seriously aggrieved by something.
If someone tried to get you 12 years in jail when you are completely innocent , would you not be just a little bit miffed.
Well, probably yes.
But I'm not quite sure that applies in this case...
you missed the verdict then
No, and nor did I miss his rather damning testimony where he basically admitted 90% of what was complained of was true, but denied it amounted to sexual misconduct.
You been reading the SUN. Utter bollox, he was completely exonerated on all charges and on the most extreme charge the supposed victim was not even there as was proved in court.
Did it get mentioned here that Estonia has a new PM?
I think she, Kaja Kallas, is the first Prime Minister of anywhere that I've found genuinely pleasant to look at.
Have you seen Sanna Marin from Finland?
I hadn't, she's very nice looking too. But crazy young for a Prime Minister at 35!?
Kurtz in Austria has been PM since he was 30 I believe, with a brief gap.
Almost in their dotage. Baby Doc Duvalier was 19 when he took over from his father. San Marino has had 4 heads of government under 30 - the last one was last year.
Well sure, but any young idiot can take over when they have the right genes in a pseudo monarchy.
Though 19 year olds can work out - Look at Gaius Octavius.
Edward IV did OK. Edward III was only 18 when he seized power in a coup from Mortimer and his mother.
Precocious little scamp.
I miss young royals getting bored of waiting for their their turn even when their father was not particularly tyrannical, and rebelling. Apparently so common people weren't even necessarily disinherited for doing it!
Richard I seems to get a pass on that for some reason.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
Scottish police, not British forces (as they did in Spain, sending national forces to break up the referendum by force).
Assuming Sturgeon deployed Police Scotland to deal with it, if not then obviously British police reinforcements from elsewhere would have to be sent to control any such riots, probably led by the Ministry of Defence Police.
Looks like our SCotch experts need a rethink already
Apparently Scottish Labour and the Liberal Democrat’s will not support Douglas Ross in a desire to boycott Indyref. This would be a major blow for the Tories. It would leave them Isolated amongst Unionist peers. Major frictions between Unionists will become apparent!
Just what we needed; another Scot has come to Natsplain Unionism to us all.
The case data looks really positive today, even taking into account it's a weekend figure. Was expecting ~28k according to the algorithm so coming in at 22k is definitely a big positive. The rate of contraction is actually increasing at the moment, the R value is going down again, which is impressive after this long being under 1.
Add in the effects of vaccination over the coming two weeks and we should actually start to see some really big strides in the hospitalisation rate falling and pressure on the NHS drop considerably.
I have a slight suspicion that the vaccination of front line NHS is starting to pay off. A lot of infections have been hospital acquired (not blaming anyone - its a tricky thing to contain). If we have now vaccinated a substantial number of the front line NHS, we may be seeing less of the hospital acquired infections.
It's also worth noting that the vast majority of those ~500k people who have had both doses are NHS front line staff so they will hopefully be fully immune by now and there is a huge reduction in shedding and spreading for them.
A referendum which isn't legally authorised and internationally recognised is absolutely no use at all for the Nats, except to further stoke the already well-stoked grievance machine. They must know this, so there's a huge amount of bluster here.
From the point of view of the Conservative government, I really can't see any upside to agreeing the referendum. Better to say No, ignore the fuss, and leave it to the next Labour PM to impale himself or herself on the spike.
If its authorised by the Scottish Parliament - and if the Scottish Parliament has the legal authority to authorise it - then how is that not legally authorised?
The UK has a proud history of respecting democracy. Is the union more important than that?
I'm looking at it from the point of view of the politics, not the rights and wrongs.
However, the UK government has a very strong argument that we've just had a Scottish independence referendum. I seem to recall that you thought a second Brexit referendum would be an outrage; same principle applies, surely?
You recall wrong, I never thought a second Brexit referendum would be an outrage, if there was an election mandating that.
If the Lib Dems had won the 2017 or 2019 election then they'd have been entitled to hold a second referendum if that was in their manifesto.
Holding another referendum without a general election inbetween getting a mandate to hold that referendum is an outrage.
Since the Scottish 2014 referendum there have been: 1 Brexit Referendum (won in Scotland by Remain) 1 Holyrood election (won by SNP, but they only got a majority) 3 Westminster elections (all won by the SNP)
Now there's going to be a 2nd Holyrood election. If the SNP get a majority on a mandate of holding a vote then fair enough. If in 2024 Labour of the Liberal Democrats win a majority on a mandate of a "rejoin the EU" referendum then fair enough. That is democracy.
OK, but the point is that the UK government has a perfectly respectable argument. The Scots have had a referendum, not long ago, so clearly there's no argument that it is anti-democratic to refuse one now. Everyone on all sides said it was a 'once in a generation' event. It would not be sensible to hold referendums on the biggest possible constitutional issue every time there's an election, just because the same party that won it last time has won it again.
You may agree or disagree, as may the Nats, but that is a perfectly reasonable argument, and one which (crucially) will seem reasonable internationally.
Boris Johnson has hinted that the Government will be "looking at the potential of relaxing some measures", before mid- February.
The Prime Minister said that the Government was "looking at the data as it comes in", and then added that "before then we'll be looking at the potential of relaxing some measures".
However No 10 pushed back against Mr Johnson's words and said that the 15th of February "remains the earliest point at which we could change any of the rules".
I think JOhnson is wrong to consider relaxation on February but he did say "looking at" relaxing before that date rather than saying he actually would.
Oh, for God's sake. We have had enough government by hint and kite-flying. Until you've decided what needs to be done, STFU. When you've decided, JFDI. Sorry to be vulgar, but really...
Boris needs to say NOW:
- we are not relaxing anything before 1 April - we will publish a plan in March but implementation will be dependent on how the situation (hopefully) improves - the approach will be cautious
Seems sensible.
As others have mentioned, all credit to you for having had an open mind, and changed it, on this. I remember the days when your anti-lockdown comments seemed to revolve around your user name, in that you asserted your right to go around all the London pubs whatever disease may be frolicking around. So good on you. (Mind you, I also vaguely remember you as a London Tory, so I doubt I'd agree with you on much else!). And I really miss the pub too.
I've always favoured a safe return to the pub! But yes I miss the pub too and will look forward to the return - but only when the time is right.
People need to rein in their hyperbole regarding trade wars. Just because something is made in this country doesn’t mean it’s not linked to the EU supply chain.
For example, it’s not uncommon for the components that go into manufacturing to go to the EU to be sterilised and then come back to be used to make or transfer product.
Likewise certain single use sensors and filters may be sourced from Germany and the Netherlands.
It’s not easy to switch suppliers quickly either as everything needs to be validated and verified.
I agree.
I suspect Astra Zeneca can show that they are being as fair as they can in allocating the vaccines that are being produced, and it would probably take some heat from this if they did.
They could also gently point out that the EU still has not approved the vaccine.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
Looks like our SCotch experts need a rethink already
Apparently Scottish Labour and the Liberal Democrat’s will not support Douglas Ross in a desire to boycott Indyref. This would be a major blow for the Tories. It would leave them Isolated amongst Unionist peers. Major frictions between Unionists will become apparent!
Who cares, the Tories are in power at Westminster and only they can consent to a legal indyref2 and the Tories are the largest Unionist Party in Scotland
Super apologies because I know I should know this but for your images what is the reasoning behind the order the regions appear?
TIX
On the LTLA tables (the big ones)
Pretty crude, I sum the values in each row and order on that.
I tried fancier approaches, but inseams to bring the places of interest to the top.
Mind you, each table has it's limits - for tiny islands, for example, R goes ludicrous with a handful of cases.
ahhh thanks! That makes sense! Is it possible to do it alphabetically? What would be lost?
Well, some people like it in that order....
Easiest might be if you PM me an email address. I can give you access to the Google Docs collection of the spreadsheets I generate each day. That way you can search etc....
(Gets in haggis flavoured popcorn, especially for Burns’ Night!)
If one of them has to be lying and the other telling the truth my money would be on Sturgeon doing the truth telling. She gives off to me a solid and trustworthy aroma that Salmond, for all his undoubted gifts as a politician, does not.
Except...what is in it for Salmond if he is lying? He is certainly coming across as seriously aggrieved by something.
If someone tried to get you 12 years in jail when you are completely innocent , would you not be just a little bit miffed.
Well, probably yes.
But I'm not quite sure that applies in this case...
you missed the verdict then
No, and nor did I miss his rather damning testimony where he basically admitted 90% of what was complained of was true, but denied it amounted to sexual misconduct.
You been reading the SUN. Utter bollox, he was completely exonerated on all charges and on the most extreme charge the supposed victim was not even there as was proved in court.
We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia...
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
(Gets in haggis flavoured popcorn, especially for Burns’ Night!)
If one of them has to be lying and the other telling the truth my money would be on Sturgeon doing the truth telling. She gives off to me a solid and trustworthy aroma that Salmond, for all his undoubted gifts as a politician, does not.
Except...what is in it for Salmond if he is lying? He is certainly coming across as seriously aggrieved by something.
If someone tried to get you 12 years in jail when you are completely innocent , would you not be just a little bit miffed.
Well, probably yes.
But I'm not quite sure that applies in this case...
you missed the verdict then
No, and nor did I miss his rather damning testimony where he basically admitted 90% of what was complained of was true, but denied it amounted to sexual misconduct.
You been reading the SUN. Utter bollox, he was completely exonerated on all charges and on the most extreme charge the supposed victim was not even there as was proved in court.
We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia...
Don't worry, the Peace and Justice Project will see an end to that one.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
^ This ^
100% agreed. Always.
Worst case scenario too for No is a half-hearted boycott by No which turns what could have been a marginal victory for No into a legitimate and landslide victory for Yes.
If hypothetically there's a half-hearted boycott by No you could see eg a 75% Yes victory on a 50% turnout. That would be a landslide Yes win and very legitimate globally with that turnout.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
We've been through this before.
There are no riot police in Scotland.
And you are fantasising.
Are Hessian mercenaries still available for hire?
That is just a bit too much in bad taste (as well as historically inappropriate as an analogy). We already have at least one [edit, sorry] person on the site salivating in the hope of violence.
A blood mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on 35% turnout would be my guess.
Yeah, sounds plausible, although I suspect turnout would be lower.
The last thing the SNP want is for the election to be about education etc. hence ramping up Indy. Placates the hard-core (and there is definitely a party management issue in play) and distracts from what appears to be a less than impressive performance on the vaccination roll-out. Also they may be slightly (very slightly) concerned about SLAB coming back to life under Sarwar. Making everything about Indy is the best way of stifling a Labour revival.
LOL, another Scotch expert talks utter mince.
Well you're no Scotland expert either.
I remember when Alastair Meeks tipped the SNP to lose their majority (10/1 and 8/1 on the election day 2016) you said people were losing their money.
The same thing you said when people were backing No in 2014.
Ditto when some people backed the Tories to win 10 plus seats in 2017.
So you talk plenty of mince.
Jog on Loser
Keep your Ayr on.
If only
Never bother - summat'll turnip!
I don't think a syrup of figs made out of turnip would be very attractive.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
Scottish police, not British forces (as they did in Spain, sending national forces to break up the referendum by force).
Assuming Sturgeon deployed Police Scotland to deal with it, if not then obviously British police reinforcements from elsewhere would have to be sent to control any such riots
If the Scottish government wants to invite police to help with a nationalist riot, that’s fine. It’s also not what happened in Spain.
For the avoidance of doubt, what happened in Spain was that the Catalonian referendum, which was taking place illegally but otherwise peacefully, was broken up violently by Spanish forces. There is precisely no chance that the British state will order troops into Scotland to violently disrupt a peaceful if illegal referendum. The comparison is utterly ludicrous.
"The UK are going to imitate the Australian system......"
I stopped listening at this point. So insidious. How long before our culture sinks completely down the toilet in the government's madcap drive to be part of the Anglosphere and not Europe?
This referendum is going to be a huge mess, isn't it?
Yep but Brexit (after Scotland voted to remain) gives the SNP a huge mandate especially if the independence parties get the votes they are likely to get (80 out of 120 seats 50+% per cent of the vote)
(Gets in haggis flavoured popcorn, especially for Burns’ Night!)
If one of them has to be lying and the other telling the truth my money would be on Sturgeon doing the truth telling. She gives off to me a solid and trustworthy aroma that Salmond, for all his undoubted gifts as a politician, does not.
There speaks ignorance. Unless Aberdein lied under oath she told porkies to parliament. Also top aid asked him to change his evidence so her career was not impacted. Last gambit is they are saying the evidence cannot be used by inquiry, witholding documentation and had their lackey Lord Advocate stated that Salmond would be prosecuted if he told the truth under oath at the inquiry.
On some things, well this thing, Malcy is on the money.
It does leave the Nats with something of a headache... Its common knowledge in the North East that Salmond has "not behaved well towards several women" when he was fu´ and there was clear justification for the allegations and the trial. On the other hand the Nippy Sweetie and her husband have clearly not played it straight.
If Wee Eck brings Nicola down, it might not change the Indy2 mood music, but equally the tide may be turning anyway and this is the last go that they get. If the election were to be delayed until the autumn, then things could have really turned into a clusterboorach... to use Blackford´s happy phrase.
The contracts, which are confidential, include clauses that allow the Commission to terminate a contract with a vaccine producer.
How the heck would that help, even if AZ are playing silly buggers?
Also, 'British drugmaker'? Wiki tells me it is British-Swedish, is the latter part pretty ephemeral?
Genuine question.
It's mostly UK based now, very little of it is still Swedish. UK listed, UK HQ, almost all of the R&D is done in the UK labs.
I don't think that's entirely true, though it probably is of immunology. AFAIK, about 40% (?) of AZN sales derive from Sweden - and the Karolinska institute is a more than respectable base of research.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
You do if it is an illegal referendum
Let me get this right. YOu want people to count in an illegal referendum? Then it's not illegal any more.
Even in Catalonia 2 million people voted, over 90% for Yes, it was still illegal
You were talking about something quite difrferent - about people counting as No if theyt didn't vote at all. That's the extreme application of your doctrine that Don't KNows always vote the way you want them to. Which has a very sensitive history in Scotland after 1978.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris and Westminster refuse to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then, even if Boris does not go as far as Rajoy and order the arrest of Sturgeon and SNP leaders and the deployment of police to try and stop the poll taking place.
Indeed, and if Scotland were to assume talks with the EU about joining as an independent country would be easy, wait until the Spanish government becomes involved! If the SNP thinks that a referendum that is boycotted by the uniionists and is unauthorised by Westminster would have international credibility, they only have to look at 2017.
Oh Dear , time to leave ,down to just idiots talking to each other.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
Scottish police, not British forces (as they did in Spain, sending national forces to break up the referendum by force).
Assuming Sturgeon deployed Police Scotland to deal with it, if not then obviously British police reinforcements from elsewhere would have to be sent to control any such riots
If the Scottish government wants to invite police to help with a nationalist riot, that’s fine. It’s also not what happened in Spain.
For the avoidance of doubt, what happened in Spain was that the Catalonian referendum, which was taking place illegally but otherwise peacefully, was broken up violently by Spanish forces. There is precisely no chance that the British state will order troops into Scotland to violently disrupt a peaceful if illegal referendum. The comparison is utterly ludicrous.
No it isn't, not if to save her skin Sturgeon allowed the riots to continue, tearing down Union flags, attacking the Scottish Office HQ in Edinburgh etc in the aim of enabling a UDI.
Then Boris would have to deploy Ministry of Defence Police to Scotland to restore order and he would do so.
In Catalonia there was also major rioting in 2019 when the Catalan nationalist leaders were put on trial and jailed that Spanish riot police put down.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
We've been through this before.
There are no riot police in Scotland.
And you are fantasising.
If there were such police forces in Scotland, to whom would they be loyal. I suspect not Westminster 🤔
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
We've been through this before.
There are no riot police in Scotland.
And you are fantasising.
Are Hessian mercenaries still available for hire?
That is just a bit too much in bad taste (as well as historically inappropriate as an analogy). We already have at least one [edit, sorry] person on the site salivating in the hope of violence.
Well bad taste is in the eye of the beholder. HYUFD's absurd fantasies don't preclude dark attempts at humour.
As for historically inappropriate, I have no idea what wars Hessians fought in or when, I just wanted historical mercenaries, since obviously mercenaries are available today.
Though wiki says I'm being unfair on the Hessians, who were auxillaries.
The contracts, which are confidential, include clauses that allow the Commission to terminate a contract with a vaccine producer.
How the heck would that help, even if AZ are playing silly buggers?
Also, 'British drugmaker'? Wiki tells me it is British-Swedish, is the latter part pretty ephemeral?
Genuine question.
It's mostly UK based now, very little of it is still Swedish. UK listed, UK HQ, almost all of the R&D is done in the UK labs.
I don't think that's entirely true, though it probably is of immunology. AFAIK, about 40% (?) of AZN sales derive from Sweden - and the Karolinska institute is a more than respectable base of research.
AZN closed their big research plant in Loughborough some years ago.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
Scottish police, not British forces (as they did in Spain, sending national forces to break up the referendum by force).
Assuming Sturgeon deployed Police Scotland to deal with it, if not then obviously British police reinforcements from elsewhere would have to be sent to control any such riots
If the Scottish government wants to invite police to help with a nationalist riot, that’s fine. It’s also not what happened in Spain.
For the avoidance of doubt, what happened in Spain was that the Catalonian referendum, which was taking place illegally but otherwise peacefully, was broken up violently by Spanish forces. There is precisely no chance that the British state will order troops into Scotland to violently disrupt a peaceful if illegal referendum. The comparison is utterly ludicrous.
No it isn't, not if to save her skin Sturgeon allowed the riots to continue, tearing down Union flags, attacking the Scottish Office HQ in Edinburgh etc in the aim of enabling a UDI.
Then Boris would have to deploy Ministry of Defence Police to Scotland to restore order and he would do so
Super apologies because I know I should know this but for your images what is the reasoning behind the order the regions appear?
TIX
On the LTLA tables (the big ones)
Pretty crude, I sum the values in each row and order on that.
I tried fancier approaches, but inseams to bring the places of interest to the top.
Mind you, each table has it's limits - for tiny islands, for example, R goes ludicrous with a handful of cases.
ahhh thanks! That makes sense! Is it possible to do it alphabetically? What would be lost?
Well, some people like it in that order....
Easiest might be if you PM me an email address. I can give you access to the Google Docs collection of the spreadsheets I generate each day. That way you can search etc....
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
^ This ^
100% agreed. Always.
Worst case scenario too for No is a half-hearted boycott by No which turns what could have been a marginal victory for No into a legitimate and landslide victory for Yes.
If hypothetically there's a half-hearted boycott by No you could see eg a 75% Yes victory on a 50% turnout. That would be a landslide Yes win and very legitimate globally with that turnout.
This is desperate stuff. A referendum with no constitutional bearing, held by an organisation with no constitutional remit, with no opposition campaign, is not going to be seen as anything more than an utter, utter mess. Let them have it at - trying to oppose it legally would be lending it far more credence than it deserves. And afterwards, those responsible for the waste of public money should be held to account.
Surely the more troublesome implication of the Salmond case is that the First Minister used taxpayer money and the resources of the Scottish government to pursue a case against a political rival - a case she was advised would probably fail due to the flimsiness of the allegations - with the apparent goal of ruining his reputation beyond repair, regardless of his actual guilt. And if Salmond hadn't had the resources he needed to fight the case properly, he very easily could have gone to prison. Whether Sturgeon knew about the allegations on the 28th of March or 2nd of April seems like a distraction to me.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
Scottish police, not British forces (as they did in Spain, sending national forces to break up the referendum by force).
Assuming Sturgeon deployed Police Scotland to deal with it, if not then obviously British police reinforcements from elsewhere would have to be sent to control any such riots
If the Scottish government wants to invite police to help with a nationalist riot, that’s fine. It’s also not what happened in Spain.
For the avoidance of doubt, what happened in Spain was that the Catalonian referendum, which was taking place illegally but otherwise peacefully, was broken up violently by Spanish forces. There is precisely no chance that the British state will order troops into Scotland to violently disrupt a peaceful if illegal referendum. The comparison is utterly ludicrous.
No it isn't, not if to save her skin Sturgeon allowed the riots to continue, tearing down Union flags, attacking the Scottish Office HQ in Edinburgh etc in the aim of enabling a UDI.
Then Boris would have to deploy Ministry of Defence Police to Scotland to restore order and he would do so.
In Catalonia there was also major rioting in 2019 when the Catalan nationalist leaders were put on trial and jailed that Spanish riot police put down.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
We've been through this before.
There are no riot police in Scotland.
And you are fantasising.
Are Hessian mercenaries still available for hire?
That is just a bit too much in bad taste (as well as historically inappropriate as an analogy). We already have at least one [edit, sorry] person on the site salivating in the hope of violence.
Well bad taste is in the eye of the beholder. HYUFD's absurd fantasies don't preclude dark attempts at humour.
As for historically inappropriate, I have no idea what wars Hessians fought in or when, I just wanted historical mercenaries, since obviously mercenaries are available today.
Though wiki says I'm being unfair on the Hessians, who were auxillaries.
Ah well, I thought you were referring to the Duke of Cumberland and his troops - but evidently not so let's not fret!
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
^ This ^
100% agreed. Always.
Worst case scenario too for No is a half-hearted boycott by No which turns what could have been a marginal victory for No into a legitimate and landslide victory for Yes.
If hypothetically there's a half-hearted boycott by No you could see eg a 75% Yes victory on a 50% turnout. That would be a landslide Yes win and very legitimate globally with that turnout.
No it wouldn't, Yes won 92% of the vote on a 43% turnout in Catalonia in 2017.
On topic and to take a rare plunge (for me) into the PB minefield of Scottish Independence - I don't think this is either a smart or a dumb move from Sturgeon. To me it's simply THE move. It's a no brainer. There is a head of steam for Sindy, with Scotland's unconsented to Brexit so fresh, and if the SNP win a mandate at Holyrood with it front and centre of their platform, she has to do her damndest to deliver. That means a legal Sindy2 referendum and this is the opening salvo in the fight to get it. No way will she be content to just ask Johnson for one and then, when turned down, do nothing but shout "scandal, whither democracy?" for the next few years. What are the risks here? They're negligible. That a non-sanctioned referendum "flops"? Unlikely. At the very least the Indy side of the country will turn out and vote in large numbers. This will strengthen not detract from the case. That Johnson does an HYUFD/Catalonia and stamps down using the army? Literally unthinkable. No, she is threatening something she knows will increase the pressure on Johnson to accede to a "proper" plebiscite, and something she knows - and knows that he knows - she can go ahead and do if he doesn't back down. That's the best sort of threat. Also remember that she is under the cosh from the more militant "malcolmy" wing of her party to not ponce about on Sindy. The time is now, is the vibe. So there is this too. She has a compelling internal political reason to threaten this step and take it if she needs to. So, the bottom line (literally!) - it works and it works and it works.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
We've been through this before.
There are no riot police in Scotland.
And you are fantasising.
Are Hessian mercenaries still available for hire?
That is just a bit too much in bad taste (as well as historically inappropriate as an analogy). We already have at least one [edit, sorry] person on the site salivating in the hope of violence.
Well bad taste is in the eye of the beholder. HYUFD's absurd fantasies don't preclude dark attempts at humour.
As for historically inappropriate, I have no idea what wars Hessians fought in or when, I just wanted historical mercenaries, since obviously mercenaries are available today.
Though wiki says I'm being unfair on the Hessians, who were auxillaries.
Ah well, I thought you were referring to the Duke of Cumberland and his troops - but evidently not so let's not fret!
If Hessians or other mercenaries served then then I apologise for the misunderstanding - the 18th century onwards is not my forte.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
Scottish police, not British forces (as they did in Spain, sending national forces to break up the referendum by force).
Assuming Sturgeon deployed Police Scotland to deal with it, if not then obviously British police reinforcements from elsewhere would have to be sent to control any such riots
If the Scottish government wants to invite police to help with a nationalist riot, that’s fine. It’s also not what happened in Spain.
For the avoidance of doubt, what happened in Spain was that the Catalonian referendum, which was taking place illegally but otherwise peacefully, was broken up violently by Spanish forces. There is precisely no chance that the British state will order troops into Scotland to violently disrupt a peaceful if illegal referendum. The comparison is utterly ludicrous.
No it isn't, not if to save her skin Sturgeon allowed the riots to continue, tearing down Union flags, attacking the Scottish Office HQ in Edinburgh etc in the aim of enabling a UDI.
Then Boris would have to deploy Ministry of Defence Police to Scotland to restore order and he would do so.
In Catalonia there was also major rioting in 2019 when the Catalan nationalist leaders were put on trial and jailed that Spanish riot police put down.
If there’s a riot in Scotland, thats Scotlands problem, even if the government in Edinburgh doesn’t care.
The Spainish riots you refer to were two years AFTER the referendum in Catalonia.
To be very clear, I am only making the point about an illegal referendum itself, and the violent disruption that ensued by Spanish state forces in Catalonia in order to disrupt the voting and counting. This situation would not ever happen in Scotland. EVER. No British government would send armed forces over the border to disrupt a peaceful if illegal vote.
On topic and to take a rare plunge (for me) into the PB minefield of Scottish Independence - I don't think this is either a smart or a dumb move from Sturgeon. To me it's simply THE move. It's a no brainer. There is a head of steam for Sindy, with Scotland's unconsented to Brexit so fresh, and if the SNP win a mandate at Holyrood with it front and centre of their platform, she has to do her damndest to deliver. That means a legal Sindy2 referendum and this is the opening salvo in the fight to get it. No way will she be content to just ask Johnson for one and then, when turned down, do nothing but shout "scandal, whither democracy?" for the next few years. What are the risks here? They're negligible. That a non-sanctioned referendum "flops"? Unlikely. At the very least the Indy side of the country will turn out and vote in large numbers. This will strengthen not detract from the case. That Johnson does an HYUFD/Catalonia and stamps down using the army? Literally unthinkable. No, she is threatening something she knows will increase the pressure on Johnson to accede to a "proper" plebiscite, and something she knows - and knows that he knows - she can go ahead and do if he doesn't back down. That's the best sort of threat. Also remember that she is under the cosh from the more militant "malcolmy" wing of her party to not ponce about on Sindy. The time is now, is the vibe. So there is this too. She has a compelling internal political reason to threaten this step and take it if she needs to. So, the bottom line (literally!) - it works and it works and it works.
And if the aftermath turns violent, as it may, she would look like a nationalist troublemaker in the midst of a pandemic
Looks like there is going to be a three week scramble to get back to the UK. Expect all and sundry to arrive with all kinds of variants and mutations when the government announces that it is implementing the £1.5k hotel stay tomorrow. We should essentially put a pause on flight booking for a week to avoid this and ensure that everyone who doesn't already have plans to come here gets caught in the hotel net and we don't import all of these variant cases from people who went to Brazil, flew to Portugal and then fly back from Spain.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
We've been through this before.
There are no riot police in Scotland.
And you are fantasising.
Are Hessian mercenaries still available for hire?
That is just a bit too much in bad taste (as well as historically inappropriate as an analogy). We already have at least one [edit, sorry] person on the site salivating in the hope of violence.
Well bad taste is in the eye of the beholder. HYUFD's absurd fantasies don't preclude dark attempts at humour.
As for historically inappropriate, I have no idea what wars Hessians fought in or when, I just wanted historical mercenaries, since obviously mercenaries are available today.
Though wiki says I'm being unfair on the Hessians, who were auxillaries.
Ah well, I thought you were referring to the Duke of Cumberland and his troops - but evidently not so let's not fret!
If Hessians or other mercenaries served then then I apologise for the misunderstanding - the 18th century onwards is not my forte.
On topic and to take a rare plunge (for me) into the PB minefield of Scottish Independence - I don't think this is either a smart or a dumb move from Sturgeon. To me it's simply THE move. It's a no brainer. There is a head of steam for Sindy, with Scotland's unconsented to Brexit so fresh, and if the SNP win a mandate at Holyrood with it front and centre of their platform, she has to do her damndest to deliver. That means a legal Sindy2 referendum and this is the opening salvo in the fight to get it. No way will she be content to just ask Johnson for one and then, when turned down, do nothing but shout "scandal, whither democracy?" for the next few years. What are the risks here? They're negligible. That a non-sanctioned referendum "flops"? Unlikely. At the very least the Indy side of the country will turn out and vote in large numbers. This will strengthen not detract from the case. That Johnson does an HYUFD/Catalonia and stamps down using the army? Literally unthinkable. No, she is threatening something she knows will increase the pressure on Johnson to accede to a "proper" plebiscite, and something she knows - and knows that he knows - she can go ahead and do if he doesn't back down. That's the best sort of threat. Also remember that she is under the cosh from the more militant "malcolmy" wing of her party to not ponce about on Sindy. The time is now, is the vibe. So there is this too. She has a compelling internal political reason to threaten this step and take it if she needs to. So, the bottom line (literally!) - it works and it works and it works.
And if the aftermath turns violent, as it may, she would look like a nationalist troublemaker in the midst of a pandemic
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
For comparison in 2017 the Nationalists won the unconstitutional Catalan independence referendum by 92% to 7.9% as to whether Catalonia should be an independent republic.
Turnout was only 43% though due to the boycott of Spanish Unionists
A comparison which every Unionist on this board wishes would stop continually being made.
I am afraid like it or not if the SNP win a Holyrood majority in May, Boris refuses to grant them a legal indyref2 but Sturgeon orders an unofficial indyref2 to be held anyway we will be in a Madrid Catalonia style standoff between London and Edinburgh whether we like it or not.
The Unionist boycott of the referendum too will also mirror the situation in Catalonia then
No. There will something of a stalemate between the two sides, but it’s nothing like what happened in Catalonia - especially as we know the violent way in which that situation was resolved.
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
If you think there will be no rioting from the SNP hardcore once Boris refuses to grant a legal indyref2 or recognise the result then you are braver man than me.
I hope you are right
That’s not what I said. I said there would be no violence by the UK state authorities or forces.
There would however obviously be deployment of riot police if rioting did break out by nationalist hardliners
We've been through this before.
There are no riot police in Scotland.
And you are fantasising.
Are Hessian mercenaries still available for hire?
That is just a bit too much in bad taste (as well as historically inappropriate as an analogy). We already have at least one [edit, sorry] person on the site salivating in the hope of violence.
Well bad taste is in the eye of the beholder. HYUFD's absurd fantasies don't preclude dark attempts at humour.
As for historically inappropriate, I have no idea what wars Hessians fought in or when, I just wanted historical mercenaries, since obviously mercenaries are available today.
Though wiki says I'm being unfair on the Hessians, who were auxillaries.
They fought for the King loyally in the American Revolutionary War.
The American colonists however did not have MPs as Scots do and nor had they already voted against independence in a once in a generation referendum
On the face of it, Astrazeneca has a serious case to answer. The assertion is that the EU paid considerable money up front for pre-production of the vaccine and for them to say months later, sorry our supplier screwed up and it turns out we don't have any, doesn't seem like a good answer. Not least because the EU is a big buyer and powerful regulator of their business.
I suspect we may see moves towards compulsory licensing of in-patent drugs.
Comments
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/03/17/the-trial-of-alex-salmond-ive-never-attempted-non-consensual-sexual-relations-in-my-life/
There will be no violence in Scotland, by anyone from the UK government.
The contracts, which are confidential, include clauses that allow the Commission to terminate a contract with a vaccine producer.
How the heck would that help, even if AZ are playing silly buggers?
Also, 'British drugmaker'? Wiki tells me it is British-Swedish, is the latter part pretty ephemeral?
Genuine question.
After 5 mins, lardy realises the sign he is standing under says queue at other till.
I hope you are right
Eager journalist: "What is your message to the man who made this disastrous error and lost you nearly a decade of your life?"
Ex-prisoner: (mildly) "We all make mistakes."
I know i'm not very conventionally patriotic, but I do rather like British understatement.
If the Lib Dems had won the 2017 or 2019 election then they'd have been entitled to hold a second referendum if that was in their manifesto.
Holding another referendum without a general election inbetween getting a mandate to hold that referendum is an outrage.
Since the Scottish 2014 referendum there have been:
1 Brexit Referendum (won in Scotland by Remain)
1 Holyrood election (won by SNP, but they only got a majority)
3 Westminster elections (all won by the SNP)
Now there's going to be a 2nd Holyrood election. If the SNP get a majority on a mandate of holding a vote then fair enough. If in 2024 Labour of the Liberal Democrats win a majority on a mandate of a "rejoin the EU" referendum then fair enough. That is democracy.
It's a shame that their new approach involves trying to blame all the wrong people in a feeble attempt at arse covering, but at least they've realised.
As others have mentioned, all credit to you for having had an open mind, and changed it, on this. I remember the days when your anti-lockdown comments seemed to revolve around your user name, in that you asserted your right to go around all the London pubs whatever disease may be frolicking around. So good on you. (Mind you, I also vaguely remember you as a London Tory, so I doubt I'd agree with you on much else!). And I really miss the pub too.
Apparently Scottish Labour and the Liberal Democrat’s will not support Douglas Ross in a desire to boycott Indyref. This would be a major blow for the Tories. It would leave them Isolated amongst Unionist peers. Major frictions between Unionists will become apparent!
Super apologies because I know I should know this but for your images what is the reasoning behind the order the regions appear?
TIX
For example, it’s not uncommon for the components that go into manufacturing to go to the EU to be sterilised and then come back to be used to make or transfer product.
Likewise certain single use sensors and filters may be sourced from Germany and the Netherlands.
It’s not easy to switch suppliers quickly either as everything needs to be validated and verified.
Pretty crude, I sum the values in each row and order on that.
I tried fancier approaches, but inseams to bring the places of interest to the top.
Mind you, each table has it's limits - for tiny islands, for example, R goes ludicrous with a handful of cases.
Edinburgh's famous department store Jenners is to close for good with the loss of 200 jobs.
Frasers Group said it would cease trading on 3 May, after 183 years in the city, as it had been unable to reach agreement with the site's owner.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-55796806
Fashion retailer Boohoo has bought the Debenhams brand and website for £55m. However, it will not take on any of the firm's remaining 118 High Street stores or its workforce.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55793411
I can understand peoples desires to know about the future, and what criteria will determine when we start to open up. I'd rather keep that for SAGE and the government to determine, without setting up targets to then get called out for.
I miss young royals getting bored of waiting for their their turn even when their father was not particularly tyrannical, and rebelling. Apparently so common people weren't even necessarily disinherited for doing it!
Richard I seems to get a pass on that for some reason.
You may agree or disagree, as may the Nats, but that is a perfectly reasonable argument, and one which (crucially) will seem reasonable internationally.
I suspect Astra Zeneca can show that they are being as fair as they can in allocating the vaccines that are being produced, and it would probably take some heat from this if they did.
They could also gently point out that the EU still has not approved the vaccine.
There are no riot police in Scotland.
And you are fantasising.
Easiest might be if you PM me an email address. I can give you access to the Google Docs collection of the spreadsheets I generate each day. That way you can search etc....
100% agreed. Always.
Worst case scenario too for No is a half-hearted boycott by No which turns what could have been a marginal victory for No into a legitimate and landslide victory for Yes.
If hypothetically there's a half-hearted boycott by No you could see eg a 75% Yes victory on a 50% turnout. That would be a landslide Yes win and very legitimate globally with that turnout.
For the avoidance of doubt, what happened in Spain was that the Catalonian referendum, which was taking place illegally but otherwise peacefully, was broken up violently by Spanish forces. There is precisely no chance that the British state will order troops into Scotland to violently disrupt a peaceful if illegal referendum. The comparison is utterly ludicrous.
I stopped listening at this point. So insidious. How long before our culture sinks completely down the toilet in the government's madcap drive to be part of the Anglosphere and not Europe?
If Wee Eck brings Nicola down, it might not change the Indy2 mood music, but equally the tide may be turning anyway and this is the last go that they get. If the election were to be delayed until the autumn, then things could have really turned into a clusterboorach... to use Blackford´s happy phrase.
Jesus.
AFAIK, about 40% (?) of AZN sales derive from Sweden - and the Karolinska institute is a more than respectable base of research.
Then Boris would have to deploy Ministry of Defence Police to Scotland to restore order and he would do so.
In Catalonia there was also major rioting in 2019 when the Catalan nationalist leaders were put on trial and jailed that Spanish riot police put down.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/27/spanish-police-clash-with-thousands-of-catalan-protestors-in-barcelona
As for historically inappropriate, I have no idea what wars Hessians fought in or when, I just wanted historical mercenaries, since obviously mercenaries are available today.
Though wiki says I'm being unfair on the Hessians, who were auxillaries.
What are you getting out of posting such rubbish?
It was still illegitimate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_referendum
I don't think this is either a smart or a dumb move from Sturgeon. To me it's simply THE move. It's a no brainer.
There is a head of steam for Sindy, with Scotland's unconsented to Brexit so fresh, and if the SNP win a mandate at Holyrood with it front and centre of their platform, she has to do her damndest to deliver. That means a legal Sindy2 referendum and this is the opening salvo in the fight to get it. No way will she be content to just ask Johnson for one and then, when turned down, do nothing but shout "scandal, whither democracy?" for the next few years.
What are the risks here? They're negligible.
That a non-sanctioned referendum "flops"? Unlikely. At the very least the Indy side of the country will turn out and vote in large numbers. This will strengthen not detract from the case. That Johnson does an HYUFD/Catalonia and stamps down using the army? Literally unthinkable.
No, she is threatening something she knows will increase the pressure on Johnson to accede to a "proper" plebiscite, and something she knows - and knows that he knows - she can go ahead and do if he doesn't back down. That's the best sort of threat.
Also remember that she is under the cosh from the more militant "malcolmy" wing of her party to not ponce about on Sindy. The time is now, is the vibe. So there is this too. She has a compelling internal political reason to threaten this step and take it if she needs to.
So, the bottom line (literally!) - it works and it works and it works.
If there’s a riot in Scotland, thats Scotlands problem, even if the government in Edinburgh doesn’t care.
The Spainish riots you refer to were two years AFTER the referendum in Catalonia.
To be very clear, I am only making the point about an illegal referendum itself, and the violent disruption that ensued by Spanish state forces in Catalonia in order to disrupt the voting and counting. This situation would not ever happen in Scotland. EVER. No British government would send armed forces over the border to disrupt a peaceful if illegal vote.
Back when there was talk of a second referendum on Brexit, the SNP wanted a confirmatory referendum on the Brexit deal.
Now why wouldn't she and the SNP want a confirmatory referendum on any Scexit deal?
Perhaps that will guide Sturgeon's choice of a referendum date?
The American colonists however did not have MPs as Scots do and nor had they already voted against independence in a once in a generation referendum
I suspect we may see moves towards compulsory licensing of in-patent drugs.