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.
And yet it is so very counterintuitive, that phone cord business.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
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.
I had two serious flu-like illnesses, one in December 2019 and the other a few weeks ago. Pretty sure one of them was C19. It is awful when you have it. You feel like it's never going to get better in the midst of it.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
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.
And yet it is so very counterintuitive, that phone cord business.
Even if it is, why imagine that Downing St would bother to photoshop the reflection in a picture and change the angle of the cord? It's batshit-fucking-crazy thinking!
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.
Without going into the whys and wherefores of Scottish independence and/or new/next Indy Ref, am starting to get the feeling that a situation is developing, that appears similar to how You-Know in the USA used Black Lives Matter protests (including riots but mostly peaceful) to stoke up his rightwing base and (attempted) to swing the swing vote in their direction.
Including egging things on with inflammatory rhetoric and use of agents provocateur, including misuse of federal law enforcement as well as Proud Boy stormtroopers.
Culminating in the January 2021 attempted Putsch. All part of the Putin-Bannon-Trumpsky playbook.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
In the US it’s a bit of hokey-cokey but if I understand wiki correctly they have the same precedence as other European countries but below other non-EU member countries? Above other non-country representatives such as the African Union.
The Prime Minister is back on the news again tonight, talking about maybe or maybe not making changes to the lockdown in February again. Yet more wobbling about. It's incredibly unhelpful.
It really would be helpful if the messaging stopped changing every five minutes and the Government established the parameters which will determine when easing takes place. Hancock said at the presser that he doesn't want to put timescales on it, and that's fine. Exact timescales aren't needed, and nor is it reasonable to expect them given that we do not know exactly how the pandemic is going to progress. But what we could really use is an indication as to what the hospitalizations, caseloads and vaccination levels need to look like before society will start to open up, the order in which easing will take place, and the timescales between each step (both the amount of notice to be given, e.g. of when children will be going back to school, and how long we will then have to pause to assess the effects of each step before considering moving on to the next 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
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
True. But I don't think Catalonia and Spain is a good comparison. Westminster will not behave on this as Madrid did there and everyone knows this. Including, I sense, you.
I think you're just playing up your flashy 'Rod Stewart of PB' celeb status again.
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.
Even worse than not being able to visualize how two-dimensional plans and blueprints will actually look and function in a three-dimensional world, is BELIEVING that you do when actually you do not.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
Na, better than being put to waste.
Absolutely.
Anyone vaccinated is better than the vaccine going to waste, from the point of view of the common good.
I did speak to a constitutional expert/lawyer this morning.
He thinks what will happen is
1) Scottish Government will ask for a referendum
2) UK Government will say no
3) Scottish Government holds one anyway and wins
4) Scottish Government asks the UK Government to start talks on Scexit deal
5) UK Government says no, the Scottish referendum has no weight as it wasn't a section 30 authorised referendum
6) Scottish Government takes this to the courts
7) SCOTUK will probably say the Scottish Government has acted outside its powers ending any talk of Scexit based on 3)
8) However it may rule that a lawful referendum be granted (or ask the UK Government what exactly it considers the trigger for a S30 referendum) because if a party or parties committed to holding Indref2 consistently winning the popular vote/most/majority seats consistently at Westminster and Holyrood elections isn't a trigger then what is?
9) The UK Government response to 8) could trigger all sorts of unintended consequences, I suspect the Belfast agreement and possibly the Australian marriage law postal survey maybe cited.
I doubt the court will rule that a lawful referendum be granted because that would be absolutely a power grab by the courts when the power was explicitly retained by Westminster
A blood mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
At which Boris and the Unionists point and laugh.
If you don't vote, you don't get a say. That's normal politics.
A win is a win is a win.
Either a government acts within its authority or it doesn’t.
An advisory referendum called without alignment with Westminster and boycotted by one side has no power beyond marketing
The advisory referendum worked to perfection for you Tories whe you wanted to take us out from the protection and guarantees of the EU. It was, as you say, just marketing then and continues to be so. This Johnson government is not legitimate.
I did not know that the CEO of AstraZeneca is a French vet who thinks his £9,400,000 salary is annoyingly small.
He (along with the scientists) might be getting a gong or two when all is said and done.
The Nobel Prize for medicine is going to be a difficult one this year! Possibly the BioNTech couple and the first commercial MRNA vaccine?
Plenty of knighthoods for all the Brits involved in vaccine development, with piles of other honours for those whose work stood out. Everyone should get nominating!
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
I think the impulse to see things in binary terms blurs the issue somewhat. On a very rough estimate I'd say there are 25%ish Scotnats and 30%ish Britnats 'till the day I die' folk, and the boycotters would come from that 30%. There's a whole swirling churn in the middle to be looking at (the startling large amount of No to Yes converts due to Brexit in some polls being a case in point). I'm also not sure if there's a resounding majority elected to Holyrood with an advisory referendum in the centre of their manifesto that bellowing about a boycott will be a great look. If BJ and co keep saying it'd be a meaningless vote with no chance of its result being enacted, it may even tempt some people to make their opinion known via the ballot box -'take that Nippy you vile separatist!'.
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?
Yes the UK has a proud history of evolving from an absolute monarchy to a proper democracy - and using our Empire to abolish slavery - that is entirely correct. Globally we've been ahead of the curve in that respect for most of the last millenium and it has evolved over time.
Why would we take the retrograde step of turning our back on democracy now? We're not Spain or China - we're better than that.
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.
And yet it is so very counterintuitive, that phone cord business.
Thank God there was no text visible in the mirror...
I did speak to a constitutional expert/lawyer this morning.
He thinks what will happen is
1) Scottish Government will ask for a referendum
2) UK Government will say no
3) Scottish Government holds one anyway and wins
4) Scottish Government asks the UK Government to start talks on Scexit deal
5) UK Government says no, the Scottish referendum has no weight as it wasn't a section 30 authorised referendum
6) Scottish Government takes this to the courts
7) SCOTUK will probably say the Scottish Government has acted outside its powers ending any talk of Scexit based on 3)
8) However it may rule that a lawful referendum be granted (or ask the UK Government what exactly it considers the trigger for a S30 referendum) because if a party or parties committed to holding Indref2 consistently winning the popular vote/most/majority seats consistently at Westminster and Holyrood elections isn't a trigger then what is?
9) The UK Government response to 8) could trigger all sorts of unintended consequences, I suspect the Belfast agreement and possibly the Australian marriage law postal survey maybe cited.
I doubt the court will rule that a lawful referendum be granted because that would be absolutely a power grab by the courts when the power was explicitly retained by Westminster
You misunderstand, the court won't rule that a lawful referendum be granted, they'll ask the government to explain what, for example, how long they consider a generation lasts, and does it require a majority of votes or seats, and does Westminster or Holyrood election count.
The government response will be interesting for all sorts of reasons.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
You shouldn't feel guilty for queue jumping.
The more people out there who are vaccinated the better.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
I'm delighted to hear stories like yours. I don't care who gets it if the alternative is wasting vaccine. So well done for making use of it, and remember that someone else will now be able to have a dose that you might have used at a later date.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
No, you shouldn’t.
But I must be misunderstanding your post - are you really only 14 years older than your daughter?
I did speak to a constitutional expert/lawyer this morning.
He thinks what will happen is
1) Scottish Government will ask for a referendum
2) UK Government will say no
3) Scottish Government holds one anyway and wins
4) Scottish Government asks the UK Government to start talks on Scexit deal
5) UK Government says no, the Scottish referendum has no weight as it wasn't a section 30 authorised referendum
6) Scottish Government takes this to the courts
7) SCOTUK will probably say the Scottish Government has acted outside its powers ending any talk of Scexit based on 3)
8) However it may rule that a lawful referendum be granted (or ask the UK Government what exactly it considers the trigger for a S30 referendum) because if a party or parties committed to holding Indref2 consistently winning the popular vote/most/majority seats consistently at Westminster and Holyrood elections isn't a trigger then what is?
9) The UK Government response to 8) could trigger all sorts of unintended consequences, I suspect the Belfast agreement and possibly the Australian marriage law postal survey maybe cited.
I doubt the court will rule that a lawful referendum be granted because that would be absolutely a power grab by the courts when the power was explicitly retained by Westminster
You misunderstand, the court won't rule that a lawful referendum be granted, they'll ask the government to explain what, for example, how long they consider a generation lasts, and does it require a majority of votes or seats, and does Westminster or Holyrood election count.
The government response will be interesting for all sorts of reasons.
The average age of first time mothers in Scotland is about 30. Thus 30 years seems like a reasonable definition of a generation, and one based on a Scottish metric at that. If, under those circumstances, the UK Government were feeling cheeky then it could clarify this in a one paragraph response to the judges. If it were feeling really cheeky it could put it into law.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
I think the impulse to see things in binary terms blurs the issue somewhat. On a very rough estimate I'd say there are 25%ish Scotnats and 30%ish Britnats 'till the day I die' folk, and the boycotters would come from that 30%. There's a whole swirling churn in the middle to be looking at (the startling large amount of No to Yes converts due to Brexit in some polls being a case in point). I'm also not sure if there's a resounding majority elected to Holyrood with an advisory referendum in the centre of their manifesto that bellowing about a boycott will be a great look. If BJ and co keep saying it'd be a meaningless vote with no chance of its result being enacted, it may even tempt some people to make their opinion known via the ballot box -'take that Nippy you vile separatist!'.
Indeed: if it's meaningless why get all upset about it, send in ModPlod with lathis, etc. etc. Bit of a contradiction there.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
Na, better than being put to waste.
Absolutely.
Anyone vaccinated is better than the vaccine going to waste, from the point of view of the common good.
Let alone your own good.
Whilst I agree that it is absolutely right not to let a vaccine go to waste it isn't quite as simple as that. Having now had the first vaccine isn't the 40 year old MP going to have to be allowed to queue-jump to get his second dose, ahead of those of higher priority? Otherwise the effectiveness is lost.
A bloody mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
So? You don't turn up, you don't count.
^ This ^
100% agreed. Always.
Worst case scenario too for No is a half-hearted boycott by No which turns what could have been a marginal victory for No into a legitimate and landslide victory for Yes.
If hypothetically there's a half-hearted boycott by No you could see eg a 75% Yes victory on a 50% turnout. That would be a landslide Yes win and very legitimate globally with that turnout.
This is desperate stuff. A referendum with no constitutional bearing, held by an organisation with no constitutional remit, with no opposition campaign, is not going to be seen as anything more than an utter, utter mess. Let them have it at - trying to oppose it legally would be lending it far more credence than it deserves. And afterwards, those responsible for the waste of public money should be held to account.
No that is desperate.
If its a legal referendum, legally held, using the legal powers of a directly elected Parliament, following an election pledging to hold it using their legal powers . . . then who is going to "hold to account" the government for that?
In a democracy the public holds to account their elected government at the following election. The Scottish voters choose their government this year. Their choice in a democracy.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
Na, better than being put to waste.
Absolutely.
Anyone vaccinated is better than the vaccine going to waste, from the point of view of the common good.
Let alone your own good.
Whilst I agree that it is absolutely right not to let a vaccine go to waste it isn't quite as simple as that. Having now had the first vaccine isn't the 40 year old MP going to have to be allowed to queue-jump to get his second dose, otherwise the effectiveness is lost?
In 12 weeks we'll have more vaccines than we'll know what to do with*. In any case, his age group may already be open by then, at which point it's completely moot.
I did not know that the CEO of AstraZeneca is a French vet who thinks his £9,400,000 salary is annoyingly small.
He (along with the scientists) might be getting a gong or two when all is said and done.
Nobel Prize for the mRNA developers.
You'd have to choose up to 3 folk only (unless more than one prize could be made to fit). Unless it was the Peace Prize but presumably even that could only go to 1 organization.
Also - they do like to have some major theoretical advance. MRNA might well qualify, mind.
Also - they do ofteh like to wait and see to see if X really is an advance.
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?
Yes the UK has a proud history of evolving from an absolute monarchy to a proper democracy - and using our Empire to abolish slavery - that is entirely correct. Globally we've been ahead of the curve in that respect for most of the last millenium and it has evolved over time.
Why would we take the retrograde step of turning our back on democracy now? We're not Spain or China - we're better than that.
"using our Empire to abolish slavery" is very good.
And of course we are. We are better than everybody.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
No guilt necessary, better that four of you now have it than four doses being thrown away. That's four fewer people that could potentially end up in hospital and that's the most important thing.
I did not know that the CEO of AstraZeneca is a French vet who thinks his £9,400,000 salary is annoyingly small.
He (along with the scientists) might be getting a gong or two when all is said and done.
Nobel Prize for the mRNA developers.
You'd have to choose up to 3 folk only (unless more than one prize could be made to fit). Unless it was the Peace Prize but presumably even that could only go to 1 organization.
Also - they do like to have some major theoretical advance. MRNA might well qualify, mind.
Also - they do ofteh like to wait and see to see if X really is an advance.
Just give it to Trump. It was probably all his idea anyway.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
Na, better than being put to waste.
Absolutely.
Anyone vaccinated is better than the vaccine going to waste, from the point of view of the common good.
Let alone your own good.
Whilst I agree that it is absolutely right not to let a vaccine go to waste it isn't quite as simple as that. Having now had the first vaccine isn't the 40 year old MP going to have to be allowed to queue-jump to get his second dose, otherwise the effectiveness is lost?
Think of the vaccination as being both doses: if he doesn't get the second then the whole thing has been wasted. Besides, vaccinating someone who does voluntary work in a hospital seems like a good idea to me, even if they are an MP.
In a way I'm quite pleased to see stories like this though: if getting vaccinated is seen as something that Tory MPs are getting before their turn it makes it look like something everybody else should be wanting to get as well...
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
Na, better than being put to waste.
Absolutely.
Anyone vaccinated is better than the vaccine going to waste, from the point of view of the common good.
Let alone your own good.
Whilst I agree that it is absolutely right not to let a vaccine go to waste it isn't quite as simple as that. Having now had the first vaccine isn't the 40 year old MP going to have to be allowed to queue-jump to get his second dose, ahead of those of higher priority? Otherwise the effectiveness is lost.
Once he's had his second dose he's "out the system" though, so the requirement down the line is 2 doses lower. If he opts to wait, you have to assume the dose will be binned so now he'll eventually need two doses on top of the binned one - three doses in total.
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.
Worry not, your insights on the issue have about as much weight as anyone else's, including mine, on the matter, and are much less unencumbered by obvious bias.
As far as desperate moves go, people who have spent years inveigling against Salmond and predicting SNP/Indy collapse every other week now holding up Salmond as their touchstone isn't desperate in the slightest.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
Na, better than being put to waste.
Absolutely.
Anyone vaccinated is better than the vaccine going to waste, from the point of view of the common good.
Let alone your own good.
Whilst I agree that it is absolutely right not to let a vaccine go to waste it isn't quite as simple as that. Having now had the first vaccine isn't the 40 year old MP going to have to be allowed to queue-jump to get his second dose, otherwise the effectiveness is lost?
Think of the vaccination as being both doses: if he doesn't get the second then the whole thing has been wasted. Besides, vaccinating someone who does voluntary work in a hospital seems like a good idea to me, even if they are an MP.
In a way I'm quite pleased to see stories like this though: if getting vaccinated is seen as something that Tory MPs are getting before their turn it makes it look like something everybody else should be wanting to get as well...
Espercially if he is a MP and has to share a workplace with risktakers such as Messrs Johnson and Hancock.
I did not know that the CEO of AstraZeneca is a French vet who thinks his £9,400,000 salary is annoyingly small.
He (along with the scientists) might be getting a gong or two when all is said and done.
Nobel Prize for the mRNA developers.
You'd have to choose up to 3 folk only (unless more than one prize could be made to fit). Unless it was the Peace Prize but presumably even that could only go to 1 organization.
Also - they do like to have some major theoretical advance. MRNA might well qualify, mind.
Also - they do ofteh like to wait and see to see if X really is an advance.
Just give it to Trump. It was probably all his idea anyway.
LOL, although there’s definitely a shout for Kushner for the Peace prize, thanks to his work in getting the Arabs and Israelis officially recognising each other.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
Na, better than being put to waste.
Absolutely.
Anyone vaccinated is better than the vaccine going to waste, from the point of view of the common good.
Let alone your own good.
Whilst I agree that it is absolutely right not to let a vaccine go to waste it isn't quite as simple as that. Having now had the first vaccine isn't the 40 year old MP going to have to be allowed to queue-jump to get his second dose, otherwise the effectiveness is lost?
Think of the vaccination as being both doses: if he doesn't get the second then the whole thing has been wasted. Besides, vaccinating someone who does voluntary work in a hospital seems like a good idea to me, even if they are an MP.
In a way I'm quite pleased to see stories like this though: if getting vaccinated is seen as something that Tory MPs are getting before their turn it makes it look like something everybody else should be wanting to get as well...
Espercially if he is a MP and has to share a workplace with risktakers such as Messrs Johnson and Hancock.
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.
Worry not, your insights on the issue have about as much weight as anyone else's, including mine, on the matter, and are much less unencumbered by obvious bias.
As far as desperate moves go, people who have spent years inveigling against Salmond and predicting SNP/Indy collapse every other week now holding up Salmond as their touchstone isn't desperate in the slightest.
And citing Wings as their source (which is itonic really because WoS al;ways likes to use enemy sources where possible, for obvious effect in his polemic).
It's not so long since certain posters here would automatyically sneer if one so much as cited him for a neutral fact such as a survey table.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
Na, better than being put to waste.
Absolutely.
Anyone vaccinated is better than the vaccine going to waste, from the point of view of the common good.
Let alone your own good.
Whilst I agree that it is absolutely right not to let a vaccine go to waste it isn't quite as simple as that. Having now had the first vaccine isn't the 40 year old MP going to have to be allowed to queue-jump to get his second dose, otherwise the effectiveness is lost?
Think of the vaccination as being both doses: if he doesn't get the second then the whole thing has been wasted. Besides, vaccinating someone who does voluntary work in a hospital seems like a good idea to me, even if they are an MP.
In a way I'm quite pleased to see stories like this though: if getting vaccinated is seen as something that Tory MPs are getting before their turn it makes it look like something everybody else should be wanting to get as well...
Espercially if he is a MP and has to share a workplace with risktakers such as Messrs Johnson and Hancock.
I did speak to a constitutional expert/lawyer this morning.
He thinks what will happen is
1) Scottish Government will ask for a referendum
2) UK Government will say no
3) Scottish Government holds one anyway and wins
4) Scottish Government asks the UK Government to start talks on Scexit deal
5) UK Government says no, the Scottish referendum has no weight as it wasn't a section 30 authorised referendum
6) Scottish Government takes this to the courts
7) SCOTUK will probably say the Scottish Government has acted outside its powers ending any talk of Scexit based on 3)
8) However it may rule that a lawful referendum be granted (or ask the UK Government what exactly it considers the trigger for a S30 referendum) because if a party or parties committed to holding Indref2 consistently winning the popular vote/most/majority seats consistently at Westminster and Holyrood elections isn't a trigger then what is?
9) The UK Government response to 8) could trigger all sorts of unintended consequences, I suspect the Belfast agreement and possibly the Australian marriage law postal survey maybe cited.
I doubt the court will rule that a lawful referendum be granted because that would be absolutely a power grab by the courts when the power was explicitly retained by Westminster
You misunderstand, the court won't rule that a lawful referendum be granted, they'll ask the government to explain what, for example, how long they consider a generation lasts, and does it require a majority of votes or seats, and does Westminster or Holyrood election count.
The government response will be interesting for all sorts of reasons.
The average age of first time mothers in Scotland is about 30. Thus 30 years seems like a reasonable definition of a generation, and one based on a Scottish metric at that. If, under those circumstances, the UK Government were feeling cheeky then it could clarify this in a one paragraph response to the judges. If it were feeling really cheeky it could put it into law.
No court will come within a mile of considering what a generation isbecause no relevant law or statute has anything whatever to say about generations.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
Na, better than being put to waste.
Absolutely.
Anyone vaccinated is better than the vaccine going to waste, from the point of view of the common good.
Let alone your own good.
Whilst I agree that it is absolutely right not to let a vaccine go to waste it isn't quite as simple as that. Having now had the first vaccine isn't the 40 year old MP going to have to be allowed to queue-jump to get his second dose, otherwise the effectiveness is lost?
Think of the vaccination as being both doses: if he doesn't get the second then the whole thing has been wasted. Besides, vaccinating someone who does voluntary work in a hospital seems like a good idea to me, even if they are an MP.
In a way I'm quite pleased to see stories like this though: if getting vaccinated is seen as something that Tory MPs are getting before their turn it makes it look like something everybody else should be wanting to get as well...
Espercially if he is a MP and has to share a workplace with risktakers such as Messrs Johnson and Hancock.
They've already had it.
Yes, but long ago, so ...
But we've not heard any stories of masses of people getting it again, so we can assume they are reasonably well protected. Plus, that kind of near-death experience will probably make Johnson a bit more careful than you are suggesting.
A blood mess, if we have a Unionist boycott then I think it will play havoc with the secondary markets like turnout and share of the votes.
Yes to win 90% of the vote on a 35% turnout would be my guess.
At which Boris and the Unionists point and laugh.
If you don't vote, you don't get a say. That's normal politics.
A win is a win is a win.
Either a government acts within its authority or it doesn’t.
An advisory referendum called without alignment with Westminster and boycotted by one side has no power beyond marketing
If the Scottish government have the authority to enact a legal advisory referendum then it is entirely within their authority.
If it isn't then it could get ruled out by the Supreme Court if challenged before it is held. The UK would be wrong IMO to refuse authorisation if it is needed - but that's politics - but if authorisation isn't needed then it is legal.
The European Parliament never authorised the UK's Brexit referendum and the UK isn't Spain.
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?
Yes the UK has a proud history of evolving from an absolute monarchy to a proper democracy - and using our Empire to abolish slavery - that is entirely correct. Globally we've been ahead of the curve in that respect for most of the last millenium and it has evolved over time.
Why would we take the retrograde step of turning our back on democracy now? We're not Spain or China - we're better than that.
"using our Empire to abolish slavery" is very good.
And of course we are. We are better than everybody.
If you say so. I don't, I just say we're better than Spain and China - but the latter especially really isn't difficult.
Really hope this isn’t some planted ‘story’ following on from the vaccine supply row. The last thing the world needs right now is politicisation of vaccines.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
Call yourself a man of the Left? You'll be buying and selling babies next.
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?
Because the Scottish Parliament’s authority is bounded by the Westminster law.
Imagine being so low as to brief against a potentially life saving vaccine. The EU really is showing the rest of the world what it's really about with all of this.
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.
Absolutely fine to have a first impression - following that, one usually acquaints oneself with some information. Sturgeon's statements on this issue don't simply contradict Salmond's - they contradict themselves, they contradict her husband's, and they contradict common sense. If you don't believe me, perhaps ask any of our Nat contingent if they subscribe to Sturgeon's version of events.
However, where would they have got this data? Germany doesn't have any Oxford vaccine, it hasn't even been approved by the EMA, so it would have to come from some country that us using it, or from the trials.
Really hope this isn’t some planted ‘story’ following on from the vaccine supply row. The last thing the world needs right now is politicisation of vaccines.
Whatever it is, it's going to become fodder for anti-vaxxers all over the world "German government says vaccines are only 8% effective, why bother" etc...
So we are to ignore the peer reviewed studies and multiple trials in several countries and we are to accept the word of an anonymous source in the German Government as reported by a newspaper?
So we are to ignore the peer reviewed studies and multiple trials in several countries and we are to accept the word of an anonymous source in the German Government as reported by a newspaper?
I did speak to a constitutional expert/lawyer this morning.
He thinks what will happen is
1) Scottish Government will ask for a referendum
2) UK Government will say no
3) Scottish Government holds one anyway and wins
4) Scottish Government asks the UK Government to start talks on Scexit deal
5) UK Government says no, the Scottish referendum has no weight as it wasn't a section 30 authorised referendum
6) Scottish Government takes this to the courts
7) SCOTUK will probably say the Scottish Government has acted outside its powers ending any talk of Scexit based on 3)
8) However it may rule that a lawful referendum be granted (or ask the UK Government what exactly it considers the trigger for a S30 referendum) because if a party or parties committed to holding Indref2 consistently winning the popular vote/most/majority seats consistently at Westminster and Holyrood elections isn't a trigger then what is?
9) The UK Government response to 8) could trigger all sorts of unintended consequences, I suspect the Belfast agreement and possibly the Australian marriage law postal survey maybe cited.
I doubt the court will rule that a lawful referendum be granted because that would be absolutely a power grab by the courts when the power was explicitly retained by Westminster
You misunderstand, the court won't rule that a lawful referendum be granted, they'll ask the government to explain what, for example, how long they consider a generation lasts, and does it require a majority of votes or seats, and does Westminster or Holyrood election count.
The government response will be interesting for all sorts of reasons.
The average age of first time mothers in Scotland is about 30. Thus 30 years seems like a reasonable definition of a generation, and one based on a Scottish metric at that. If, under those circumstances, the UK Government were feeling cheeky then it could clarify this in a one paragraph response to the judges. If it were feeling really cheeky it could put it into law.
No court will come within a mile of considering what a generation isbecause no relevant law or statute has anything whatever to say about generations.
And the 'for a generation' stuff was not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, and afaicr only mentioned by the losing side up to 18/09/14, not the winners; I'm not sure how they can promote it as an integral part of their winning offer at that point. Of course they've more than made up for it since...
Imagine being so low as to brief against a potentially life saving vaccine. The EU really is showing the rest of the world what it's really about with all of this.
I think you're getting a bit QAnonish there. If there's any briefing against anyone going on, it'll be something internal in the government coalition, because of the rows that are going on in Germany about the vaccine roll-out, or lack thereof.
White House Press Briefings will from now on be accompanied by a "politically correct TikTok dance." Just to trigger the Spectator.
Seemed an odd thing to get worked up about. I've seen clips of elected public officials in several Red states where sign language interpreters seem to be standard.
However, where would they have got this data? Germany doesn't have any Oxford vaccine, it hasn't even been approved by the EMA, so it would have to come from some country that us using it, or from the trials.
And yet they're going absolutely mental about not getting their deliveries in full. Something doesn't add up.
Seems like the German government are briefing against "the UK" vaccine. An unattributed political source, the FDA are said to be fairly impressed by the AZ data and will approve in the next week or so. Fauci has spoken of it quite positively recently and everyone is working from the same data.
Really hope this isn’t some planted ‘story’ following on from the vaccine supply row. The last thing the world needs right now is politicisation of vaccines.
Whatever it is, it's going to become fodder for anti-vaxxers all over the world "German government says vaccines are only 8% effective, why bother" etc...
Merkel needs to put her foot down if this is fake news.
Imagine being so low as to brief against a potentially life saving vaccine. The EU really is showing the rest of the world what it's really about with all of this.
I think you're getting a bit QAnonish there. If there's any briefing against anyone going on, it'll be something internal in the government coalition, because of the rows that are going on in Germany about the vaccine roll-out, or lack thereof.
Either way they're (attempting to) discrediting a vaccine that is going to be absolutely vital against the fight against this all over the world. It's succour to anti-vaxxers.
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?
Surprisingly, I am such a random person - I had the AZ first dose this afternoon although I'm not eligible yet. Long story, but briefly my daughter had been contacted by a neighbour, a parademic who was dispensing to care homes. He had 9 left of a batch that had to be used by 5pm or would be thrown away - does she know anybody who could come to be jabbed at short notice? I felt guilty about queue jumping, but he said I shouldn't as it's better not wasted. So four of us, aged 57-71, got jabbed within half an hour. He assured us that we would get the second jab within 12 weeks, but that we might have to chase it up ourselves. We got a little card to prove we'd had it, and he put us on the system so GPs should be informed. Arrangements for follow-up were a bit vague, to be honest.
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
Na, better than being put to waste.
Absolutely.
Anyone vaccinated is better than the vaccine going to waste, from the point of view of the common good.
Let alone your own good.
Whilst I agree that it is absolutely right not to let a vaccine go to waste it isn't quite as simple as that. Having now had the first vaccine isn't the 40 year old MP going to have to be allowed to queue-jump to get his second dose, otherwise the effectiveness is lost?
Think of the vaccination as being both doses: if he doesn't get the second then the whole thing has been wasted. Besides, vaccinating someone who does voluntary work in a hospital seems like a good idea to me, even if they are an MP.
In a way I'm quite pleased to see stories like this though: if getting vaccinated is seen as something that Tory MPs are getting before their turn it makes it look like something everybody else should be wanting to get as well...
Espercially if he is a MP and has to share a workplace with risktakers such as Messrs Johnson and Hancock.
So we are to ignore the peer reviewed studies and multiple trials in several countries and we are to accept the word of an anonymous source in the German Government as reported by a newspaper?
No, but it is at the moment true that the US and EU regulators haven't approved it, and we don't have much info about the age profile. I suspect it's a mangled report, but wasn't there an indication that there wasn't enough evidence from the trials on the over-65 effectiveness?
White House Press Briefings will from now on be accompanied by a "politically correct TikTok dance." Just to trigger the Spectator.
Seemed an odd thing to get worked up about. I've seen clips of elected public officials in several Red states where sign language interpreters seem to be standard.
It’s a requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, that public events be signed.
A senior EU official told Reuters on Friday that deliveries of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine to the EU would be cut by 60 percent to 31 million doses in the first quarter. According to that report, AstraZeneca said that the cut was caused by "production problems" at a vaccine factory in Belgium run by its partner Novasep.
Another EU official told POLITICO that AstraZeneca is facing two issues: First, there was an issue with one of their batches that had to be thrown out. Second, the company is still sourcing raw material to ramp up manufacturing. Now, “it seems unlikely they will meet their first quarter target,” the official said.
Two observations:
1. Love the threat to terminate the supply contract because AZ has delays. Go right ahead, baby
2. They have NO IDEA about pharma regulation. The supply chain is approved as part of the regulatory submission and approval. If the EU registration is dependent on the Novasep chain then you CAN’T just “ship vaccines” from else where as they are unapproved
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.
I am very sorry to hear that. You may have this handled, but if not it might be a nice thing to do to try to ensure he's getting plenty of zinc, and plenty of vitamin D - supplementary is good - dietary is even better. Go with the best brands you can - supermarket supplements are often not very absorbable. We're very lucky to have a lot of choice online now.
If you don't trust my advice on this (no reason why you should), I am sure Foxy would be happy to confirm whether the above is a good idea.
So we are to ignore the peer reviewed studies and multiple trials in several countries and we are to accept the word of an anonymous source in the German Government as reported by a newspaper?
No, but it is at the moment true that the US and EU regulators haven't approved it, and we don't have much info about the age profile. I suspect it's a mangled report, but wasn't there an indication that there wasn't enough evidence for the trials on the over-65 effectiveness?
If that's the case where did the number come from?
So we are to ignore the peer reviewed studies and multiple trials in several countries and we are to accept the word of an anonymous source in the German Government as reported by a newspaper?
No, but it is at the moment true that the US and EU regulators haven't approved it, and we don't have much info about the age profile. I suspect it's a mangled report, but wasn't there an indication that there wasn't enough evidence from the trials on the over-65 effectiveness?
So where are the ***** getting their info from, then?
2. They have NO IDEA about pharma regulation. The supply chain is approved as part of the regulatory submission and approval. If the EU registration is dependent on the Novasep chain then you CAN’T just “ship vaccines” from else where as they are unapproved
Did it get mentioned here that Estonia has a new PM?
I think she, Kaja Kallas, is the first Prime Minister of anywhere that I've found genuinely pleasant to look at.
Have you seen Sanna Marin from Finland?
I hadn't, she's very nice looking too. But crazy young for a Prime Minister at 35!?
Kurtz in Austria has been PM since he was 30 I believe, with a brief gap.
Almost in their dotage. Baby Doc Duvalier was 19 when he took over from his father. San Marino has had 4 heads of government under 30 - the last one was last year.
Well sure, but any young idiot can take over when they have the right genes in a pseudo monarchy.
Though 19 year olds can work out - Look at Gaius Octavius.
Comments
Please tell me I shouldn't feel guilty about queue jumping?
Including egging things on with inflammatory rhetoric and use of agents provocateur, including misuse of federal law enforcement as well as Proud Boy stormtroopers.
Culminating in the January 2021 attempted Putsch. All part of the Putin-Bannon-Trumpsky playbook.
https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1353678287780909058
Forty-year-old MP says he received leftover dose of Covid vaccine
Brendan Clarke-Smith says he got jab that would have otherwise gone to waste after doing voluntary work at hospital
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/25/forty-year-old-mp-says-he-received-left-over-dose-of-covid-vaccine
It really would be helpful if the messaging stopped changing every five minutes and the Government established the parameters which will determine when easing takes place. Hancock said at the presser that he doesn't want to put timescales on it, and that's fine. Exact timescales aren't needed, and nor is it reasonable to expect them given that we do not know exactly how the pandemic is going to progress. But what we could really use is an indication as to what the hospitalizations, caseloads and vaccination levels need to look like before society will start to open up, the order in which easing will take place, and the timescales between each step (both the amount of notice to be given, e.g. of when children will be going back to school, and how long we will then have to pause to assess the effects of each step before considering moving on to the next one.)
In short, a plan to follow, not wibble.
An advisory referendum called without alignment with Westminster and boycotted by one side has no power beyond marketing
I think you're just playing up your flashy 'Rod Stewart of PB' celeb status again.
https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1353768283904815106
Anyone vaccinated is better than the vaccine going to waste, from the point of view of the common good.
Let alone your own good.
Plenty of knighthoods for all the Brits involved in vaccine development, with piles of other honours for those whose work stood out. Everyone should get nominating!
Why would we take the retrograde step of turning our back on democracy now? We're not Spain or China - we're better than that.
The government response will be interesting for all sorts of reasons.
The more people out there who are vaccinated the better.
But I must be misunderstanding your post - are you really only 14 years older than your daughter?
If its a legal referendum, legally held, using the legal powers of a directly elected Parliament, following an election pledging to hold it using their legal powers . . . then who is going to "hold to account" the government for that?
In a democracy the public holds to account their elected government at the following election. The Scottish voters choose their government this year. Their choice in a democracy.
*Assuming they aren't seized by the EU.
Also - they do like to have some major theoretical advance. MRNA might well qualify, mind.
Also - they do ofteh like to wait and see to see if X really is an advance.
And of course we are. We are better than everybody.
Besides, vaccinating someone who does voluntary work in a hospital seems like a good idea to me, even if they are an MP.
In a way I'm quite pleased to see stories like this though: if getting vaccinated is seen as something that Tory MPs are getting before their turn it makes it look like something everybody else should be wanting to get as well...
As far as desperate moves go, people who have spent years inveigling against Salmond and predicting SNP/Indy collapse every other week now holding up Salmond as their touchstone isn't desperate in the slightest.
It's not so long since certain posters here would automatyically sneer if one so much as cited him for a neutral fact such as a survey table.
If it isn't then it could get ruled out by the Supreme Court if challenged before it is held. The UK would be wrong IMO to refuse authorisation if it is needed - but that's politics - but if authorisation isn't needed then it is legal.
The European Parliament never authorised the UK's Brexit referendum and the UK isn't Spain.
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1353774307659444226
Just to trigger the Spectator.
Wt EFFING F
However, where would they have got this data? Germany doesn't have any Oxford vaccine, it hasn't even been approved by the EMA, so it would have to come from some country that us using it, or from the trials.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32466-1/fulltext
Seems like the German government are briefing against "the UK" vaccine. An unattributed political source, the FDA are said to be fairly impressed by the AZ data and will approve in the next week or so. Fauci has spoken of it quite positively recently and everyone is working from the same data.
(Unless of course you have an 18 year old Glenmorangie to hand).
They have passed (or attempted to pass a law) to make the thing happen or not happen.
Which leads to things like this, the lady doing very fast sign language for rapper Eminem.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=VFRXaif1ewc
1. Love the threat to terminate the supply contract because AZ has delays. Go right ahead, baby
2. They have NO IDEA about pharma regulation. The supply chain is approved as part of the regulatory submission and approval. If the EU registration is dependent on the Novasep chain then you CAN’T just “ship vaccines” from else where as they are unapproved
If you don't trust my advice on this (no reason why you should), I am sure Foxy would be happy to confirm whether the above is a good idea.
I subscribe to Dr. Berg on YT, and he advises the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKU2JyIMHrc
I believe we can do a lot to fight COVID even if we catch it.