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
Do you really understand what ModPlod are?
It isn't as staggering as his misunderstanding of the alternatives to transporting oil via the Straits of Hormuz.
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
(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.
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.
The MoD plod exist only for patrol of MoD bases. They are not a paramilitary force that can be used to control riots.
What are you getting out of posting such rubbish?
'The MDP's primary responsibilities are to provide armed security and counter terrorism services to designated high-risk areas, as well as uniformed policing and limited investigative services to Ministry of Defence property'
Though of course riot police from across England could also be sent north by the UK government to provide reinforcements if necessary if rioting got out of hand in Scotland
I just cannot understand how utterly ridiculous the journalists questions are
They are having a terrible covid and it demonstrates how synthetic political journalists are focusing, as they do, on 'gotcha' moments and not constructive and intelligent questioning
This referendum is going to be a huge mess, isn't it?
Yup, plus Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have also created an unfortunate precedent.
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?
The two situations are different. A referendum on Scottish independence is about establishing Scottish sovereignty, not renegotiating a treaty relationship.
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)
I don't at the moment see Unionists winning either way: in a referendum or by refusing it.
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
And what would Johnson look like?
Like Rajoy in 2017 who kept Catalonia part of 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
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.
The MoD plod exist only for patrol of MoD bases. They are not a paramilitary force that can be used to control riots.
What are you getting out of posting such rubbish?
'The MDP's primary responsibilities are to provide armed security and counter terrorism services to designated high-risk areas, as well as uniformed policing and limited investigative services to Ministry of Defence property'
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
Do you really understand what ModPlod are?
It isn't as staggering as his misunderstanding of the alternatives to transporting oil via the Straits of Hormuz.
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
And what would Johnson look like?
Like Rajoy in 2017 who kept Catalonia part of Spain
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And you try and do something about it - if you can.
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.
It may not be a good answer, but it may be completely accurate and threatening them won't achieve anything if that is so.
If they've failed to produce enough that's bad, but the EU demanding the appearance of supplies that do not exist citing the contract requirements would be simply irrational, surely.
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.
It is the potential rioting by hardcore nationalists after the UK government ignored the result of that illegal vote that would be the issue
Eh? Journos ask 'when is the lockdown going to end' every single frigging day, except on the days when they are asking 'why aren't you locking down more?'
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And you try and do something about it - if you can.
Threatening them and seizing the supplies of others?
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And you try and do something about it - if you can.
They can try things. But simply pointing to the contract and expecting more to magically appear is a weird thing to try.
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)
I don't at the moment see Unionists winning either way: in a referendum or by refusing it.
Refusing it of course wins, see Catalonia now and unlike Catalonia Scotland already had a once in a generation referendum just 7 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.
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.
It is the potential rioting by hardcore nationalists after the UK government ignored the result of that illegal vote that would be the issue
BUT THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT VIOLENTY DISRUPT THE VOTE ITSELF.
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
The EU are probably right to raise the question. To do so in such an inflammatory manner is absurd and counterproductive. I hope they row back, as this benefits no one.
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.
Ok, in the same way that they promised the UK government 20m doses available in October and we actually only got 4m, of which only 500k were produced in time to be certified, in January. It's a difficult manufacturing process and shit happens. You have to play the hand you're dealt and 31m doses is better than zero and in fact a better delivery than what the UK received at only a 60% reduction rather than an 80% reduction.
This bitching and veiled threats to ban exports of the Pfizer vaccine are completely unedifying and shows the EU for what it really is. You won't see it though, blinkered as you are by your love of the EU.
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
The EU are probably right to raise the question. To do so in such an inflammatory manner is absurd and counterproductive. I hope they row back, as this benefits no one.
Just as the UK probably asked why things were going slow a month or so ago. But they didn't threaten export bans or set requirements of reporting of what vaccines are being sent where.
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.
It's a desperate move. The sort of move that happens when you're under severe political pressure. The desperation has been clear for some time - this is Sturgeon's counter-statement to Salmond's claim that she broke the ministerial code:
"The first minister entirely rejects Mr Salmond's claims about the ministerial code. We should always remember that the roots of this issue lie in complaints made by women about Alex Salmond's behaviour whilst he was first minister, aspects of which he has conceded. It is not surprising therefore that he continues to try to divert focus from that by seeking to malign the reputation of the first minister and by spinning false conspiracy theories."
- that's a dead end, rat trying to claw its way from certain death, statement. There's nothing Sturgeon can do except desperately try to undermine Salmond's reputation as a witness, which if a sexual assault trial couldn't do it, doesn't look to be a winning strategy.
Boris can safely ignore watch this proceed with sympathetic indifference, and though he won't (and can't) put off another referendum on Scottish independence for good, it won't and shouldn't make a blind bit of difference to when they hold the real 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.
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.
The MoD plod exist only for patrol of MoD bases. They are not a paramilitary force that can be used to control riots.
What are you getting out of posting such rubbish?
'The MDP's primary responsibilities are to provide armed security and counter terrorism services to designated high-risk areas, as well as uniformed policing and limited investigative services to Ministry of Defence property'
It saddens me enormously as you represent our party and yet talk abject nonsense on Independence
I really don't get how you can still believe the Tory party is worth supporting - it's a lost cause populated by idiots because outside of real oddballs no one sane would enter politics anymore.
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.
It is the potential rioting by hardcore nationalists after the UK government ignored the result of that illegal vote that would be the issue
BUT THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT VIOLENTY DISRUPT THE VOTE ITSELF.
Also, he was tyalking about rioting BEFORE any vote even.
It's getting embarrassing.
And just when we'd had some interesting discussions with some new (to me) stuff, we get HYUFD;s fantasies of violence all over again, derailing the thread.
In the future, all companies producing vaccines against Covid 19 will make sure they are not doing it in the EU so they will not have to provide early notification whenever they want to export vaccines to third countries.
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And shit often multiples when trying to do things under pressure.
It's not great but were it me they were trying to pin the blame on I would be asking "So do you wish to cancel the contract" and watch their reaction.
And ideally I would be doing that on live TV so the world saw their reaction.
This referendum is going to be a huge mess, isn't it?
Yup, plus Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have also created an unfortunate precedent.
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?
The two situations are different. A referendum on Scottish independence is about establishing Scottish sovereignty, not renegotiating a treaty relationship.
But it would have given the voters the opportunity to overturn the original 2016 result because the deal didn't match the reality.
For example, no matter how much the SNP say it the Governor of the Bank of England cannot legally make decisions for RUK whilst basing on what is best for an independent Scotland.
Back in 2014 I knew many experts in this field, and I'm kinda one myself, pointed this out, SNP rhetoric will not be matched by reality in this area.
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.
The MoD plod exist only for patrol of MoD bases. They are not a paramilitary force that can be used to control riots.
What are you getting out of posting such rubbish?
'The MDP's primary responsibilities are to provide armed security and counter terrorism services to designated high-risk areas, as well as uniformed policing and limited investigative services to Ministry of Defence property'
It saddens me enormously as you represent our party and yet talk abject nonsense on Independence
I really don't get how you can still believe the Tory party is worth supporting - it's a lost cause populated by idiots because outside of real oddballs no one sane would enter politics anymore.
I am not going to surrender to the extremes like HYUFD, hence why I continue to call him out
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
The EU are probably right to raise the question. To do so in such an inflammatory manner is absurd and counterproductive. I hope they row back, as this benefits no one.
And that's the issue, I can understand the disappointment at a 60% reduction in initial deliveries. I would be working with them to figure out how the bottlenecks can be resolved, what can the regulators help with, what expertise can 27 different governments offer to ensure that the additional 49m is delivered ASAP.
Threatening export bans and making a grab for UK supply or casting aspersions that because it's a UK company they've favoured the UK etc... is just completely counterproductive. If I was a Pfizer executive right now I'd demand a phone call with UVdL for clarity on this export registration scheme that they are talking about and make it clear that there is no way that exports to international partners can be hindered in any way.
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.
It may not be a good answer, but it may be completely accurate and threatening them won't achieve anything if that is so.
If they've failed to produce enough that's bad, but the EU demanding the appearance of supplies that do not exist citing the contract requirements would be simply irrational, surely.
The EU won't be able to get drugs that don't exist, but it doesn't mean that the EU is being irrational by kicking up a stink. It can get AZ later. I wouldn't say AZ is handling this well.
Eh? Journos ask 'when is the lockdown going to end' every single frigging day, except on the days when they are asking 'why aren't you locking down more?'
That's unfair. Often they ask both on the same day.
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.
The MoD plod exist only for patrol of MoD bases. They are not a paramilitary force that can be used to control riots.
What are you getting out of posting such rubbish?
'The MDP's primary responsibilities are to provide armed security and counter terrorism services to designated high-risk areas, as well as uniformed policing and limited investigative services to Ministry of Defence property'
It saddens me enormously as you represent our party and yet talk abject nonsense on Independence
I really don't get how you can still believe the Tory party is worth supporting - it's a lost cause populated by idiots because outside of real oddballs no one sane would enter politics anymore.
I am not going to surrender to the extremes like HYUFD, hence why I continue to call him out
But just about everyone else who used to be a Tory party member on here has left which means you are fighting a losing battle? UKIP lite has won control of the party and that isn't going to change.
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And you try and do something about it - if you can.
They can try things. But simply pointing to the contract and expecting more to magically appear is a weird thing to try.
Isn't the issue that AZN have unfairly prioritised one customer over another when output was less than promised?
Question: if there is spare vaccine which is given to a random person to save wasting it is that person then automatically entitled to the second jab within 12 weeks and how would this be monitored?
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.
It is the potential rioting by hardcore nationalists after the UK government ignored the result of that illegal vote that would be the issue
BUT THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT VIOLENTY DISRUPT THE VOTE ITSELF.
Also, he was tyalking about rioting BEFORE any vote even.
It's getting embarrassing.
And just when we'd had some interesting discussions with some new (to me) stuff, we get HYUFD;s fantasies of violence all over again, derailing the thread.
HYUFD is a one person wrecking ball and I have no doubt at all that the extreme views he quotes on here are only representing his strange views and are actually acting as a recruiting sergeant for Independence
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.
It may not be a good answer, but it may be completely accurate and threatening them won't achieve anything if that is so.
If they've failed to produce enough that's bad, but the EU demanding the appearance of supplies that do not exist citing the contract requirements would be simply irrational, surely.
The EU won't be able to get drugs that don't exist, but it doesn't mean that the EU is being irrational by kicking up a stink. It can get AZ later. I wouldn't say AZ is handling this well.
Have we reached peak EU Good, UK Bad? No one in government (publicly) batted an eyelid when AZ dramatically underperformed with their promises wrt. the UK.
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.
It may not be a good answer, but it may be completely accurate and threatening them won't achieve anything if that is so.
If they've failed to produce enough that's bad, but the EU demanding the appearance of supplies that do not exist citing the contract requirements would be simply irrational, surely.
Threatening to sue them is unlikely to help either - and MEPs suggesting other country's supplies are suborned to supply the EU isn't a good look either.
Hancock notably didn't take the opportunity of comparing English & Scottish vaccination rates, unlike another frequent TV performer.
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.
It may not be a good answer, but it may be completely accurate and threatening them won't achieve anything if that is so.
If they've failed to produce enough that's bad, but the EU demanding the appearance of supplies that do not exist citing the contract requirements would be simply irrational, surely.
The EU won't be able to get drugs that don't exist, but it doesn't mean that the EU is being irrational by kicking up a stink. It can get AZ later. I wouldn't say AZ is handling this well.
Lol, of course you defend the EU. You really can't bring yourself to to criticise them in any way, can you? It's just sad.
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.
It is the potential rioting by hardcore nationalists after the UK government ignored the result of that illegal vote that would be the issue
If violence ensued it would be a problem. Nobody wants that. Therefore if the aftermath of a non-Westminster-sanctioned vote is perceived to carry that possibility it simply adds to its potency as a threat. This supports my point. I'm not saying Sturgeon should be threatening or doing this, I'm saying it makes perfect sense from her perspective, and I disagree with the posters opining that it will backfire. It won't. It's an obvious move and a good 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.
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.
It is the potential rioting by hardcore nationalists after the UK government ignored the result of that illegal vote that would be the issue
BUT THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT VIOLENTY DISRUPT THE VOTE ITSELF.
Also, he was tyalking about rioting BEFORE any vote even.
It's getting embarrassing.
And just when we'd had some interesting discussions with some new (to me) stuff, we get HYUFD;s fantasies of violence all over again, derailing the thread.
HYUFD is a one person wrecking ball and I have no doubt at all that the extreme views he quotes on here are only representing his strange views and are actually acting as a recruiting sergeant for Independence
There is nothing extreme about controlling a nationalist riot, the likelihood of which cannot be ignored once Boris and Westminster refuse to grant a legal indyref2 next year and refuse to recognise the result of any such unauthorised poll held by Sturgeon if the SNP win a majority at Holyrood in May.
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.
It is the potential rioting by hardcore nationalists after the UK government ignored the result of that illegal vote that would be the issue
BUT THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT VIOLENTY DISRUPT THE VOTE ITSELF.
Also, he was tyalking about rioting BEFORE any vote even.
It's getting embarrassing.
And just when we'd had some interesting discussions with some new (to me) stuff, we get HYUFD;s fantasies of violence all over again, derailing the thread.
He’s switching between violent Nats at the U.K. refusal to hold a referendum, violent Nats protesting the result of a referendum, potentially violent Nats all being reasons to send troops over the border. None of which will ever happen, and not what the situation was in Catalonia.
In Catalonia, the referendum was deemed to be illegal, but was proceeding otherwise peacefully until Spanish forces turned up to confiscate ballot boxes and disrupt counting, with the use of some quite extreme force. There were no violent Catalans at the time.
Any comparisons between Catalonia and Scotland are utterly disengenuous.
If the Scottish Parliament passes a referendum bill, and the U.K. government votes it down, then we have something of a stalemate and it will be up to the Scottish government how to move next. Any attempt at holding a vote will likely be challenged in the courts, but to suggest that the British state would use violence to disrupt it is totally preposterous.
Well, 10 days from initial symptoms Son is still having a thoroughly miserable time of it. Still has a fever which he cannot shake off, vomiting and his oxygen level is at 96 which is at the lower end of normal range. Had a really distressing call from him earlier.
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.
It may not be a good answer, but it may be completely accurate and threatening them won't achieve anything if that is so.
If they've failed to produce enough that's bad, but the EU demanding the appearance of supplies that do not exist citing the contract requirements would be simply irrational, surely.
Threatening to sue them is unlikely to help either - and MEPs suggesting other country's supplies are suborned to supply the EU isn't a good look either.
Hancock notably didn't take the opportunity of comparing English & Scottish vaccination rates, unlike another frequent TV performer.
I think he could have answered saying they have a slightly different strategy focusing more exclusively on care homes, which I think is totally legitimate. The differences will likely wash out in the end.
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.
It may not be a good answer, but it may be completely accurate and threatening them won't achieve anything if that is so.
If they've failed to produce enough that's bad, but the EU demanding the appearance of supplies that do not exist citing the contract requirements would be simply irrational, surely.
The EU won't be able to get drugs that don't exist, but it doesn't mean that the EU is being irrational by kicking up a stink. It can get AZ later. I wouldn't say AZ is handling this well.
Have we reached peak EU Good, UK Bad? No one in government (publicly) batted an eyelid when AZ dramatically underperformed with their promises wrt. the UK.
I'm ok with sending the EU some of our vaccines in exchange for the EU forcing the French to honour the Treaty of Troyes.
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.
Ok, in the same way that they promised the UK government 20m doses available in October and we actually only got 4m, of which only 500k were produced in time to be certified, in January. It's a difficult manufacturing process and shit happens. You have to play the hand you're dealt and 31m doses is better than zero and in fact a better delivery than what the UK received at only a 60% reduction rather than an 80% reduction.
This bitching and veiled threats to ban exports of the Pfizer vaccine are completely unedifying and shows the EU for what it really is. You won't see it though, blinkered as you are by your love of the EU.
One of the reasons the Merck vaccine failures are so disappointing - they have mass production facilities tailored to the attenuated measles virus vaccine technology, which could have ramped up large scale production very rapidly.
Well, 10 days from initial symptoms Son is still having a thoroughly miserable time of it. Still has a fever which he cannot shake off, vomiting and his oxygen level is at 96 which is at the lower end of normal range. Had a really distressing call from him earlier.
Question: if there is spare vaccine which is given to a random person to save wasting it is that person then automatically entitled to the second jab within 12 weeks and how would this be monitored?
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.
It is the potential rioting by hardcore nationalists after the UK government ignored the result of that illegal vote that would be the issue
If violence ensued it would be a problem. Nobody wants that. Therefore if the aftermath of a non-Westminster-sanctioned vote is perceived to carry that possibility it simply adds to its potency as a threat. This supports my point. I'm not saying Sturgeon should be threatening or doing this, I'm saying it makes perfect sense from her perspective, and I disagree with the posters opining that it will backfire. It won't. It's an obvious move and a good one.
An illegal referendum did not work for the Catalan nationalists in 2017 and in my view an illegal referendum would not work for Sturgeon now
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.
The MoD plod exist only for patrol of MoD bases. They are not a paramilitary force that can be used to control riots.
What are you getting out of posting such rubbish?
'The MDP's primary responsibilities are to provide armed security and counter terrorism services to designated high-risk areas, as well as uniformed policing and limited investigative services to Ministry of Defence property'
It saddens me enormously as you represent our party and yet talk abject nonsense on Independence
I really don't get how you can still believe the Tory party is worth supporting - it's a lost cause populated by idiots because outside of real oddballs no one sane would enter politics anymore.
It's not a lost cause by any means, but the problem you identify is very real nonetheless. I happen to think the Conservative Party is worth fighting for. I just wonder when the moderates are actually going to, you know, do something.
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.
It may not be a good answer, but it may be completely accurate and threatening them won't achieve anything if that is so.
If they've failed to produce enough that's bad, but the EU demanding the appearance of supplies that do not exist citing the contract requirements would be simply irrational, surely.
The EU won't be able to get drugs that don't exist, but it doesn't mean that the EU is being irrational by kicking up a stink. It can get AZ later. I wouldn't say AZ is handling this well.
Have we reached peak EU Good, UK Bad? No one in government (publicly) batted an eyelid when AZ dramatically underperformed with their promises wrt. the UK.
I'm ok with sending the EU some of our vaccines in exchange for the EU forcing the French to honour the Treaty of Troyes.
We might have to modify the treaty a bit. The area around Antwerp is strategically important at the moment.
This referendum is going to be a huge mess, isn't it?
Yup, plus Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have also created an unfortunate precedent.
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?
The two situations are different. A referendum on Scottish independence is about establishing Scottish sovereignty, not renegotiating a treaty relationship.
But it would have given the voters the opportunity to overturn the original 2016 result because the deal didn't match the reality.
For example, no matter how much the SNP say it the Governor of the Bank of England cannot legally make decisions for RUK whilst basing on what is best for an independent Scotland.
Back in 2014 I knew many experts in this field, and I'm kinda one myself, pointed this out, SNP rhetoric will not be matched by reality in this area.
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And you try and do something about it - if you can.
They can try things. But simply pointing to the contract and expecting more to magically appear is a weird thing to try.
Isn't the issue that AZN have unfairly prioritised one customer over another when output was less than promised?
The assertion I saw was that the EU paid money upfront for advance production of the vaccine and at the point it was supposed to be delivered, Astrazeneca has turned around and said, we don't have any
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And you try and do something about it - if you can.
Threatening them and seizing the supplies of others?
I am 99% confident without needing to investigate further that this is simplistic jaundiced language which does not reflect the true essence of either the situation or the proposed action.
Well, 10 days from initial symptoms Son is still having a thoroughly miserable time of it. Still has a fever which he cannot shake off, vomiting and his oxygen level is at 96 which is at the lower end of normal range. Had a really distressing call from him earlier.
I wish I could do something.
It really is a bitch of a disease.
Sounds awful. Make sure he watches that oxygen level closely, that sounds a bit worrying. Is he getting medical advice?
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
Do you really understand what ModPlod are?
It isn't as staggering as his misunderstanding of the alternatives to transporting oil via the Straits of Hormuz.
In case you missed the thread, it was in the context of threats to shipping in the straits, and he suggested that if ships had to be diverted via the Cape of Good Hope to get to Kuwait to avoid them then "so be it".
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And you try and do something about it - if you can.
They can try things. But simply pointing to the contract and expecting more to magically appear is a weird thing to try.
Isn't the issue that AZN have unfairly prioritised one customer over another when output was less than promised?
Well that is a reasonable question which ought reasonably to have been raised. There might be some truth in it; there might be none at all.
What’s going on there, is that Peston doesn’t understand angles and can’t see the cable in the reflection. It’s there, exactly where you’d expect it to be!
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And you try and do something about it - if you can.
They can try things. But simply pointing to the contract and expecting more to magically appear is a weird thing to try.
Isn't the issue that AZN have unfairly prioritised one customer over another when output was less than promised?
The assertion I saw was that the EU paid money upfront for advance production of the vaccine and at the point it was supposed to be delivered, Astrazeneca has turned around and said, we don't have any
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?
Fustian, the UK has a history of starting out as a near absolute monarchy and grudgingly admitting a bit of constitutionally delimited democracy into the mix at the slowest possible pace. What aspects of Magna Carta, the civil war, the Bill of Rights, the American war of independence, the acquisition and de-acquisition of the Empire, the Great Reform Act, universal franchise and the Parliament Acts make you think otherwise?
How much self-determination did those 3.2 million slaves enjoy?
Well, 10 days from initial symptoms Son is still having a thoroughly miserable time of it. Still has a fever which he cannot shake off, vomiting and his oxygen level is at 96 which is at the lower end of normal range. Had a really distressing call from him earlier.
I wish I could do something.
It really is a bitch of a disease.
Commiserations - hope your other half is doing OK - the Zoe app had a chart on "number of symptoms vs age" vs likelihood of ending up in hospital - which after a brief purview decided "not getting it at all" was by far the best course.
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)
I don't at the moment see Unionists winning either way: in a referendum or by refusing it.
Refusing it of course wins, see Catalonia now and unlike Catalonia Scotland already had a once in a generation referendum just 7 years ago
This seems like the definition of "Pyrrhic Victory"
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.
It may not be a good answer, but it may be completely accurate and threatening them won't achieve anything if that is so.
If they've failed to produce enough that's bad, but the EU demanding the appearance of supplies that do not exist citing the contract requirements would be simply irrational, surely.
The EU won't be able to get drugs that don't exist, but it doesn't mean that the EU is being irrational by kicking up a stink. It can get AZ later. I wouldn't say AZ is handling this well.
At least the EU has a big order with Sanofi they can rely on.
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.
The MoD plod exist only for patrol of MoD bases. They are not a paramilitary force that can be used to control riots.
What are you getting out of posting such rubbish?
'The MDP's primary responsibilities are to provide armed security and counter terrorism services to designated high-risk areas, as well as uniformed policing and limited investigative services to Ministry of Defence property'
It saddens me enormously as you represent our party and yet talk abject nonsense on Independence
I really don't get how you can still believe the Tory party is worth supporting - it's a lost cause populated by idiots because outside of real oddballs no one sane would enter politics anymore.
I am not going to surrender to the extremes like HYUFD, hence why I continue to call him out
But just about everyone else who used to be a Tory party member on here has left which means you are fighting a losing battle? UKIP lite has won control of the party and that isn't going to change.
I do not share your view
Those who have left wanted to remain in the EU which is fair enough, but I support brexit even though I voted remain and in the absence of a better alternative why would I want to leave
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.
Ok, in the same way that they promised the UK government 20m doses available in October and we actually only got 4m, of which only 500k were produced in time to be certified, in January. It's a difficult manufacturing process and shit happens. You have to play the hand you're dealt and 31m doses is better than zero and in fact a better delivery than what the UK received at only a 60% reduction rather than an 80% reduction.
This bitching and veiled threats to ban exports of the Pfizer vaccine are completely unedifying and shows the EU for what it really is. You won't see it though, blinkered as you are by your love of the EU.
One of the reasons the Merck vaccine failures are so disappointing - they have mass production facilities tailored to the attenuated measles virus vaccine technology, which could have ramped up large scale production very rapidly.
Agreed. That's a significant manufacturer of vaccines and possibly a type of vaccine that is ineffective against the COVID spike. Hopefully the J&J data is good and NovaVax also come up with decent results next month.
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.
It may not be a good answer, but it may be completely accurate and threatening them won't achieve anything if that is so.
If they've failed to produce enough that's bad, but the EU demanding the appearance of supplies that do not exist citing the contract requirements would be simply irrational, surely.
The EU won't be able to get drugs that don't exist, but it doesn't mean that the EU is being irrational by kicking up a stink. It can get AZ later. I wouldn't say AZ is handling this well.
I'm not saying kicking up a stink is irrational, in fact it is a reasonable thing to do when someone messes up.
I'm saying some of what they have been saying in kicking up a stink is irrational. Responding to claims that there isn't the supply to give them with, in effect, 'Not good enough, deliver as promised regardless' is definitely irratational.
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.
The MoD plod exist only for patrol of MoD bases. They are not a paramilitary force that can be used to control riots.
What are you getting out of posting such rubbish?
'The MDP's primary responsibilities are to provide armed security and counter terrorism services to designated high-risk areas, as well as uniformed policing and limited investigative services to Ministry of Defence property'
Though of course riot police from across England could also be sent north by the UK government to provide reinforcements if necessary if rioting got out of hand in Scotland
Yes, that confirms what I said.
Look, when I blockaded Faslane it was Strathclyde* police who carried me (and others) away. It was only when I was with others who cut their way through the perimeter fence that we met the MoD Plod (and their very well-trained dogs).
There are no circumstances where MoD Plod will be deployed away from their areas of responsibility to restore order to George Square, etc. It's not 1919.
This referendum is going to be a huge mess, isn't it?
Yup, plus Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have also created an unfortunate precedent.
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?
The two situations are different. A referendum on Scottish independence is about establishing Scottish sovereignty, not renegotiating a treaty relationship.
But it would have given the voters the opportunity to overturn the original 2016 result because the deal didn't match the reality.
For example, no matter how much the SNP say it the Governor of the Bank of England cannot legally make decisions for RUK whilst basing on what is best for an independent Scotland.
Back in 2014 I knew many experts in this field, and I'm kinda one myself, pointed this out, SNP rhetoric will not be matched by reality in this area.
A bit like Brexit.
What if England prefers the new deal?
The Scots hold all the cards, plus Norn Iron and sheep botherers also have a say.
Oh god I'd forgotten that one. A totally monstrosity of a smear that would once have ended a political career but with Trump just vanished into the haze.
Well, 10 days from initial symptoms Son is still having a thoroughly miserable time of it. Still has a fever which he cannot shake off, vomiting and his oxygen level is at 96 which is at the lower end of normal range. Had a really distressing call from him earlier.
This referendum is going to be a huge mess, isn't it?
Yup, plus Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have also created an unfortunate precedent.
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?
The two situations are different. A referendum on Scottish independence is about establishing Scottish sovereignty, not renegotiating a treaty relationship.
But it would have given the voters the opportunity to overturn the original 2016 result because the deal didn't match the reality.
For example, no matter how much the SNP say it the Governor of the Bank of England cannot legally make decisions for RUK whilst basing on what is best for an independent Scotland.
Back in 2014 I knew many experts in this field, and I'm kinda one myself, pointed this out, SNP rhetoric will not be matched by reality in this area.
A bit like Brexit.
What if England prefers the new deal?
The Scots hold all the cards, plus Norn Iron and sheep botherers also have a say.
But your scenario is based on a negotiation where it turns out that the Scots don't hold all the cards. Why would the rUK resurrect the status quo of a favourable devolution settlement?
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
Do you really understand what ModPlod are?
It isn't as staggering as his misunderstanding of the alternatives to transporting oil via the Straits of Hormuz.
In case you missed the thread, it was in the context of threats to shipping in the straits, and he suggested that if ships had to be diverted via the Cape of Good Hope to get to Kuwait to avoid them then "so be it".
Err, how would that work?
The pipelines the Saudis and Emiratis built ensure the security of their oil exports, no matter what the Iranians get up to! Non-oil goods would follow a similar path, overland through UAE and KSA.
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And you try and do something about it - if you can.
They can try things. But simply pointing to the contract and expecting more to magically appear is a weird thing to try.
Isn't the issue that AZN have unfairly prioritised one customer over another when output was less than promised?
Some seem to have implied that, but that's not all that has been said in some of these comments, and in any case some of the comments definitely have demanded their supply demand be upheld regardless of being told that's not possible - unless AZ is lying about how much it has produced, that particular demand remains a weird one to make.
If they can prove AZ have not behaved properly in how they have spread things around more power to them, companies should behave appropriately at all times, but that doesn't make some of what they are demanding reasonable.
Well, 10 days from initial symptoms Son is still having a thoroughly miserable time of it. Still has a fever which he cannot shake off, vomiting and his oxygen level is at 96 which is at the lower end of normal range. Had a really distressing call from him earlier.
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.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And you try and do something about it - if you can.
They can try things. But simply pointing to the contract and expecting more to magically appear is a weird thing to try.
Isn't the issue that AZN have unfairly prioritised one customer over another when output was less than promised?
The assertion I saw was that the EU paid money upfront for advance production of the vaccine and at the point it was supposed to be delivered, Astrazeneca has turned around and said, we don't have any
They're getting 31m doses, a reduction of 60% and every country paid them upfront money for advanced delivery. The US had operation warp speed and a domestic manufacturing requirement, our vaccine taskforce did the same and required AZ to produce the majority of the UK delivery in the UK (aiui almost all of it is domestically sourced now). The manufacturing went badly for everyone, even Pfizer failed to delivery the 10m they promised the UK in December and the 50m they promised the US in December. Neither are bitching at Pfizer about it, just getting on with it.
I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears and you'll continue to think the EU can do no wrong though.
Well, 10 days from initial symptoms Son is still having a thoroughly miserable time of it. Still has a fever which he cannot shake off, vomiting and his oxygen level is at 96 which is at the lower end of normal range. Had a really distressing call from him earlier.
I wish I could do something.
It really is a bitch of a disease.
Oh dear, sorry to hear your family are affected by all this too. May they get well soon.
5 Live’s Naga Munchetty has been speaking to former Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer after reports the UK might be having an "Australian style" quarantine system for people arriving in the country.
He says Australian citizens need the permission of the government to leave the country so "in effect you can’t leave".
Quite right....no popping to Barbados on a fictional "business trip".
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.
The MoD plod exist only for patrol of MoD bases. They are not a paramilitary force that can be used to control riots.
What are you getting out of posting such rubbish?
'The MDP's primary responsibilities are to provide armed security and counter terrorism services to designated high-risk areas, as well as uniformed policing and limited investigative services to Ministry of Defence property'
Though of course riot police from across England could also be sent north by the UK government to provide reinforcements if necessary if rioting got out of hand in Scotland
Yes, that confirms what I said.
Look, when I blockaded Faslane it was Strathclyde* police who carried me (and others) away. It was only when I was with others who cut their way through the perimeter fence that we met the MoD Plod (and their very well-trained dogs).
There are no circumstances where MoD Plod will be deployed away from their areas of responsibility to restore order to George Square, etc. It's not 1919.
Aah - I've realised why HYUFD keeps going on about sending tanks to Scotland to keep the Scots down. His computer clock is 100 years out. (They did send tanks to Scotland for political reasons, though the ones which everuone thinks of were up there for fundraising matters - it was a different lot that got sent up later, not that they were actually used in riot control, again contrary to popular myth whether Unionist or not.)
This referendum is going to be a huge mess, isn't it?
Yup, plus Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have also created an unfortunate precedent.
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?
The two situations are different. A referendum on Scottish independence is about establishing Scottish sovereignty, not renegotiating a treaty relationship.
But it would have given the voters the opportunity to overturn the original 2016 result because the deal didn't match the reality.
For example, no matter how much the SNP say it the Governor of the Bank of England cannot legally make decisions for RUK whilst basing on what is best for an independent Scotland.
Back in 2014 I knew many experts in this field, and I'm kinda one myself, pointed this out, SNP rhetoric will not be matched by reality in this area.
A bit like Brexit.
What if England prefers the new deal?
The Scots hold all the cards, plus Norn Iron and sheep botherers also have a say.
But your scenario is based on a negotiation where it turns out that the Scots don't hold all the cards. Why would the rUK resurrect the status quo of a favourable devolution settlement?
It's a shame we can't just fast forward this process to the point at which they have gone.
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
Do you really understand what ModPlod are?
It isn't as staggering as his misunderstanding of the alternatives to transporting oil via the Straits of Hormuz.
In case you missed the thread, it was in the context of threats to shipping in the straits, and he suggested that if ships had to be diverted via the Cape of Good Hope to get to Kuwait to avoid them then "so be it".
Err, how would that work?
The pipelines the Saudis and Emiratis built ensure the security of their oil exports, no matter what the Iranians get up to! Non-oil goods would follow a similar path, overland through UAE and KSA.
The discussion was all about ships. The issue being his absolute certainty that he was right when he didn't grasp the basic geography. I have no doubt you are right but that's not quite the point.
Well, 10 days from initial symptoms Son is still having a thoroughly miserable time of it. Still has a fever which he cannot shake off, vomiting and his oxygen level is at 96 which is at the lower end of normal range. Had a really distressing call from him earlier.
I wish I could do something.
It really is a bitch of a disease.
Sorry to hear that - hope your other half is having a less difficult time with it.
What’s going on there, is that Peston doesn’t understand angles and can’t see the cable in the reflection. It’s there, exactly where you’d expect it to be!
Which is why I brought it up. So I could laugh at @malcolmg again for completely buying into Peston's idiocy.
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.
The MoD plod exist only for patrol of MoD bases. They are not a paramilitary force that can be used to control riots.
What are you getting out of posting such rubbish?
'The MDP's primary responsibilities are to provide armed security and counter terrorism services to designated high-risk areas, as well as uniformed policing and limited investigative services to Ministry of Defence property'
Though of course riot police from across England could also be sent north by the UK government to provide reinforcements if necessary if rioting got out of hand in Scotland
Yes, that confirms what I said.
Look, when I blockaded Faslane it was Strathclyde* police who carried me (and others) away. It was only when I was with others who cut their way through the perimeter fence that we met the MoD Plod (and their very well-trained dogs).
There are no circumstances where MoD Plod will be deployed away from their areas of responsibility to restore order to George Square, etc. It's not 1919.
Aah - I've realised why HYUFD keeps going on about sending tanks to Scotland to keep the Scots down. His computer clock is 100 years out. (They did send tanks to Scotland for political reasons, though the ones which everuone thinks of were up there for fundraising matters - it was a different lot that got sent up later, not that they were actually used in riot control, again contrary to popular myth whether Unionist or not.)
A simpler explanation is just that HYUFD is not well. This obsession with and fetishising of political violence isn't the kind of thing that happens in a healthy mind.
Well, 10 days from initial symptoms Son is still having a thoroughly miserable time of it. Still has a fever which he cannot shake off, vomiting and his oxygen level is at 96 which is at the lower end of normal range. Had a really distressing call from him earlier.
I wish I could do something.
It really is a bitch of a disease.
Both my brother and sister had a very bad dose but did get properly better after 2 or 3 weeks. Hope your son does too and (in particular, given age) that your husband shrugs it off.
What’s going on there, is that Peston doesn’t understand angles and can’t see the cable in the reflection. It’s there, exactly where you’d expect it to be!
Which is why I brought it up. So I could laugh at @malcolmg again for completely buying into Peston's idiocy.
In fairness a lot of people have real difficulty in understanding 3-D situations from 2-D representations. I was once involved in a major development of my employer which involved a new building (admittedly quite a complex one). A colleague quietly explained to me that they had had an expensive architectural model made partly because the senior manager in charge of the project couldn't read a plan and convert it into 3-D in his mind, and the latter was ny no means stupid.
I've dome technical drawing and cam read a plan but sometimes I find it easier to make a model with bits of old Perspex or card andf a felt tip and Sellotape just to confirm my tentative mental analysis is correct.
5 Live’s Naga Munchetty has been speaking to former Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer after reports the UK might be having an "Australian style" quarantine system for people arriving in the country.
He says Australian citizens need the permission of the government to leave the country so "in effect you can’t leave".
Quite right....no popping to Barbados on a fictional "business trip".
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.
It's a desperate move. The sort of move that happens when you're under severe political pressure. The desperation has been clear for some time - this is Sturgeon's counter-statement to Salmond's claim that she broke the ministerial code:
"The first minister entirely rejects Mr Salmond's claims about the ministerial code. We should always remember that the roots of this issue lie in complaints made by women about Alex Salmond's behaviour whilst he was first minister, aspects of which he has conceded. It is not surprising therefore that he continues to try to divert focus from that by seeking to malign the reputation of the first minister and by spinning false conspiracy theories."
- that's a dead end, rat trying to claw its way from certain death, statement. There's nothing Sturgeon can do except desperately try to undermine Salmond's reputation as a witness, which if a sexual assault trial couldn't do it, doesn't look to be a winning strategy.
Boris can safely ignore watch this proceed with sympathetic indifference, and though he won't (and can't) put off another referendum on Scottish independence for good, it won't and shouldn't make a blind bit of difference to when they hold the real one.
Well I disagree for the reasons I set out. But I confess to having no inside knowledge on the Sturgeon v Salmond spat other than a pure personal hunch that the former is more likely to be telling the truth (on anything). She strikes me as a solid and trustworthy politician. Salmond more flair but less so.
What’s going on there, is that Peston doesn’t understand angles and can’t see the cable in the reflection. It’s there, exactly where you’d expect it to be!
Which is why I brought it up. So I could laugh at @malcolmg again for completely buying into Peston's idiocy.
In fairness a lot of people have real difficulty in understanding 3-D situations from 2-D representations. I was once involved in a major development of my employer which involved a new building (admittedly quite a complex one). A colleague quietly explained to me that they had had an expensive architectural model made partly because the senior manager in charge of the project couldn't read a plan and convert it into 3-D in his mind, and the latter was ny no means stupid.
I've dome technical drawing and cam read a plan but sometimes I find it easier to make a model with bits of old Perspex or card andf a felt tip and Sellotape just to confirm my tentative mental analysis is correct.
Peston and Malcolm should have built themselves models before making model tits of themselves.
Comments
It was performance art level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Defence_Police
Though of course riot police from across England could also be sent north by the UK government to provide reinforcements if necessary if rioting got out of hand in Scotland
They are having a terrible covid and it demonstrates how synthetic political journalists are focusing, as they do, on 'gotcha' moments and not constructive and intelligent questioning
It saddens me enormously as you represent our party and yet talk abject nonsense on Independence
If they've failed to produce enough that's bad, but the EU demanding the appearance of supplies that do not exist citing the contract requirements would be simply irrational, surely.
Eh? Journos ask 'when is the lockdown going to end' every single frigging day, except on the days when they are asking 'why aren't you locking down more?'
To do so in such an inflammatory manner is absurd and counterproductive. I hope they row back, as this benefits no one.
This bitching and veiled threats to ban exports of the Pfizer vaccine are completely unedifying and shows the EU for what it really is. You won't see it though, blinkered as you are by your love of the EU.
Just as the UK probably asked why things were going slow a month or so ago. But they didn't threaten export bans or set requirements of reporting of what vaccines are being sent where.
"The first minister entirely rejects Mr Salmond's claims about the ministerial code. We should always remember that the roots of this issue lie in complaints made by women about Alex Salmond's behaviour whilst he was first minister, aspects of which he has conceded. It is not surprising therefore that he continues to try to divert focus from that by seeking to malign the reputation of the first minister and by spinning false conspiracy theories."
- that's a dead end, rat trying to claw its way from certain death, statement. There's nothing Sturgeon can do except desperately try to undermine Salmond's reputation as a witness, which if a sexual assault trial couldn't do it, doesn't look to be a winning strategy.
Boris can safely ignore watch this proceed with sympathetic indifference, and though he won't (and can't) put off another referendum on Scottish independence for good, it won't and shouldn't make a blind bit of difference to when they hold the real one.
It's getting embarrassing.
And just when we'd had some interesting discussions with some new (to me) stuff, we get HYUFD;s fantasies of violence all over again, derailing the thread.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1353747732863844358?s=20
It's not great but were it me they were trying to pin the blame on I would be asking "So do you wish to cancel the contract" and watch their reaction.
And ideally I would be doing that on live TV so the world saw their reaction.
For example, no matter how much the SNP say it the Governor of the Bank of England cannot legally make decisions for RUK whilst basing on what is best for an independent Scotland.
Back in 2014 I knew many experts in this field, and I'm kinda one myself, pointed this out, SNP rhetoric will not be matched by reality in this area.
A bit like Brexit.
Threatening export bans and making a grab for UK supply or casting aspersions that because it's a UK company they've favoured the UK etc... is just completely counterproductive. If I was a Pfizer executive right now I'd demand a phone call with UVdL for clarity on this export registration scheme that they are talking about and make it clear that there is no way that exports to international partners can be hindered in any way.
https://twitter.com/talos1975/status/1353441902113288199?s=20
Hancock notably didn't take the opportunity of comparing English & Scottish vaccination rates, unlike another frequent TV performer.
In Catalonia, the referendum was deemed to be illegal, but was proceeding otherwise peacefully until Spanish forces turned up to confiscate ballot boxes and disrupt counting, with the use of some quite extreme force. There were no violent Catalans at the time.
Any comparisons between Catalonia and Scotland are utterly disengenuous.
If the Scottish Parliament passes a referendum bill, and the U.K. government votes it down, then we have something of a stalemate and it will be up to the Scottish government how to move next. Any attempt at holding a vote will likely be challenged in the courts, but to suggest that the British state would use violence to disrupt it is totally preposterous.
I wish I could do something.
It really is a bitch of a disease.
I happen to think the Conservative Party is worth fighting for. I just wonder when the moderates are actually going to, you know, do something.
https://twitter.com/npfandos/status/1353760875748990987
https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brussels-playbook/politico-brussels-playbook-vaccine-delay-turkeys-charm-offensive-portuguese-reelection/
There might be some truth in it; there might be none at all.
How much self-determination did those 3.2 million slaves enjoy?
Those who have left wanted to remain in the EU which is fair enough, but I support brexit even though I voted remain and in the absence of a better alternative why would I want to leave
I'm saying some of what they have been saying in kicking up a stink is irrational. Responding to claims that there isn't the supply to give them with, in effect, 'Not good enough, deliver as promised regardless' is definitely irratational.
Look, when I blockaded Faslane it was Strathclyde* police who carried me (and others) away. It was only when I was with others who cut their way through the perimeter fence that we met the MoD Plod (and their very well-trained dogs).
There are no circumstances where MoD Plod will be deployed away from their areas of responsibility to restore order to George Square, etc. It's not 1919.
The pipelines the Saudis and Emiratis built ensure the security of their oil exports, no matter what the Iranians get up to! Non-oil goods would follow a similar path, overland through UAE and KSA.
If they can prove AZ have not behaved properly in how they have spread things around more power to them, companies should behave appropriately at all times, but that doesn't make some of what they are demanding reasonable.
Wait, they don't like Roberts either, do they?
I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears and you'll continue to think the EU can do no wrong though.
Some of us just want a quiet life for a change.
I expect the Trumpers want the ghost of Scalia to preside on the trial.
Best wishes for a speedy recovery for them both
This obsession with and fetishising of political violence isn't the kind of thing that happens in a healthy mind.
I've dome technical drawing and cam read a plan but sometimes I find it easier to make a model with bits of old Perspex or card andf a felt tip and Sellotape just to confirm my tentative mental analysis is correct.
About those borders....