Dr John Campbell’s latest YT video predicts significant possibility of a COVID disaster in Canada, and possibly the US, in March without significant pre-emptive action.
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.
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?
Don't ask me! As I said, just before the bit you bolded, I suspect it's a mangled report.
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.
Given it's from an unattributed politician and not a scientist I have my doubts.
Quite. Mouthy know-nothings doubtless exist amongst the German political establishment in similar proportions to ours.
Here's something relevant from the write up of the AZN trials in the Lancet:
While the data presented here show that ChAdOx1 nCov-19 is efficacious against symptomatic disease, with most cases accruing in adults younger than 55 years of age so far, an important public health consideration is the morbidity and mortality of the disease in an older adult population and thus the potential efficacy in this age group. We have reported immunogenicity data showing similar immune responses following vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 in older adults, including those older than 70 years of age, when compared with those younger than 55 years. As older age groups were recruited later than younger age groups, there has been less time for cases to accrue and as a result, efficacy data in these cohorts are currently limited by the small number of cases, but additional data will be available in future analyses.
Thus, on the one hand the number of older patients included in the trial was too small to provide an accurate assessment of effectiveness specific to them (bad,) but on the other hand the immune reaction seen in the older patients was similar to that seen in the younger patients (good.) There may be something I'm missing here, but to a lay person there's no particular reason to suppose that similar immune response should not equal similar level of protection.
Anyway, if the difference in efficacy between the Oxford jab and the Pfizer jab is greater than we would expect based on the trial data, then this should become obvious very soon. More than a tenth of the adult population has now had one vaccine or the other, increasing numbers of them will have gone more than three weeks since they had it, and the authorities will be watching for instances of serious disease amongst vaccinated individuals like a hawk.
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.
There are some odd alliances forming. Best not to split the Sindy movement, I'd say, but I suppose that is a SOTBO and also, by the sounds of it, possibly too late. Me, I'm mainly coming at this from a betting angle atm. Sindy2 timing could potentially be a very good market for me if I can suss it out. By which I mean spot if the consensus is wrong. Sindy2 in 22 is about 4.5 on Betfair, don't know how you feel about that? On the actual issue, I'm torn. It would be so sad (for me) to see the UK bust up but I know if I were Scottish I would be voting Yes.
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.
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?
Ha ha, no. She didn't get it. The four were her parents + stepmum/stepdad - we all went together, very modern. Daughter put us first.
Thanks to all those who've assuaged my slight guilt.
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
We are waiting for a test launch of the second stage of the largest rocket in human history.
Built by roughneck welders on a beach.
With the most sophisticated rocket engines ever built.
By a company started because a Russian spat on a table, and one of the greatest rocket engine designers in the US was so bored with his days job... that he started building rocket engines in his garage.
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.
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?
Well, the EU seems to be mightily pissed off at not getting delivery of it (maybe rightly - I don't know) so someone must think it has some efficacy.
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?
Ha ha, no. She didn't get it. The four were her parents + stepmum/stepdad - we all went together, very modern. Daughter put us first.
Thanks to all those who've assuaged my slight guilt.
Given it's from an unattributed politician and not a scientist I have my doubts.
Quite. Mouthy know-nothings doubtless exist amongst the German political establishment in similar proportions to ours.
Here's something relevant from the write up of the AZN trials in the Lancet:
While the data presented here show that ChAdOx1 nCov-19 is efficacious against symptomatic disease, with most cases accruing in adults younger than 55 years of age so far, an important public health consideration is the morbidity and mortality of the disease in an older adult population and thus the potential efficacy in this age group. We have reported immunogenicity data showing similar immune responses following vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 in older adults, including those older than 70 years of age, when compared with those younger than 55 years. As older age groups were recruited later than younger age groups, there has been less time for cases to accrue and as a result, efficacy data in these cohorts are currently limited by the small number of cases, but additional data will be available in future analyses.
Thus, on the one hand the number of older patients included in the trial was too small to provide an accurate assessment of effectiveness specific to them (bad,) but on the other hand the immune reaction seen in the older patients was similar to that seen in the younger patients (good.) There may be something I'm missing here, but to a lay person there's no particular reason to suppose that similar immune response should not equal similar level of protection.
Anyway, if the difference in efficacy between the Oxford jab and the Pfizer jab is greater than we would expect based on the trial data, then this should become obvious very soon. More than a tenth of the adult population has now had one vaccine or the other, increasing numbers of them will have gone more than three weeks since they had it, and the authorities will be watching for instances of serious disease amongst vaccinated individuals like a hawk.
For AZ there is also clinical evidence that suggests the optimum delta between doses should be 12 weeks, I'm sure our 12 week gap is related to this.
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?
Exactly! Why can't they get their news from a newspaper you can trust
The contracts, which are confidential, include clauses that allow the Commission to terminate a contract with a vaccine producer.
How the heck would that help, even if AZ are playing silly buggers?
Also, 'British drugmaker'? Wiki tells me it is British-Swedish, is the latter part pretty ephemeral?
Genuine question.
Astra is Swedish
Their reference shareholder is the Wallenberg family
Their Deputy Chairman (iirc) is a Wallenberg appointment
Besides that, would I be right in suspecting that most of the AZN vaccine in use in the UK is produced in the UK, whereas most or all of the AZN vaccine promised to the EU is produced in Belgium - and it's the Belgian factory that's experiencing the production issues?
That being the case, it would be quite logical if they were fulfilling UK orders and falling short on EU ones at the same time.
We were told before Brexit, and you can understand the logic of this too, that the UK might end up stuck in the vaccine queue behind the EU countries because the EU is much larger and, therefore, more important. If there is any suggestion of a conspiracy to favour the UK over the EU27 then it's preposterous. Why would they deliberately set out to do that? It would be terrible for business.
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
So the next Scottish government might have a different view?
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.
Yes, it could be politicking, to distract from the trainwreck that is vaccine procurement and roll out in the EU. Look, a dead squirrel.
If it is, it is scandalously irresponsible
On the other hand, there are question marks about AZ in the USA, Australia....
But I still don't see where this info might have come from
"just 20 positive coronavirus tests out of 128,000 people"
"most of the 20 were tested due to a known exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 case. Most were over 55. Half had a preexisting condition. None had a fever over 38.5°C. None needed hospitalisation."
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.
Signing for a notoriously fast talking rapper? Her poor hands and fingers.
That video always makes me smile. Her name is Holly Maniatty and there’s a load of videos out there of her doing sign language for rock and rap acts. Must take an awful lot of practice to stand up there doing that for an hour or more.
I used to learn all the words and sing along to rap songs as a teenager in the ‘90s, but ‘Rap God’ by Eminem is definitely past me now as a 40-something!
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.
I believe we can do a lot to fight COVID even if we catch it.
Fasting might be a good idea to strengthen your immune system when you are healthy, but I struggle to see it as a good response when you are already infected.
I was diagnosed with a vit D deficiency years ago, and told to take a supplement. At the sixth month stage a retest showed only modest progress and it took a whole year to get my level back to normal. So I doubt that taking even very high doses of vitamin pills is likely to make much difference during the timespan a virus infection will play out.
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.
Harsh, and rather unfair. My baby-trading days ended a long time ago.
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.
Your hostility to the EU shines through every pore, but are you sure that this German newspaper is a mouthpiece for the EU rather than just, er, a German newspaper? The thread suggests it's a German story, not an EU story.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said Monday that leaked coronavirus data circulating online "may have been taken out of context" to sow distrust in the EU's vaccine approval process.
Just as Sweden was a lockdownn experiment that ended up with ultimately mixed results (Unfortunately a death toll ~ 3 times Denmark), I guess the UK is the guinea pig for half/extended delay dosing regime. Other nations must be hoping - like Sweden way back that the UK is succesful even if ultimately Sweden reverted to standard lockdown tactics.
"just 20 positive coronavirus tests out of 128,000 people"
"most of the 20 were tested due to a known exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 case. Most were over 55. Half had a preexisting condition. None had a fever over 38.5°C. None needed hospitalisation."
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.
The Scottish Parliament's authority extends to almost everything the Scottish Parliament wishes to set a law on - they don't have to apply for Westminster's permission before they pass a bill - apart from reserved matters.
If the United Kingdom Supreme Court rules that an advisory referendum is not a reserved matter, so the Scottish Parliament has the authority to hold an advisory referendum, then it is a legally authorised referendum.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said Monday that leaked coronavirus data circulating online "may have been taken out of context" to sow distrust in the EU's vaccine approval process.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said Monday that leaked coronavirus data circulating online "may have been taken out of context" to sow distrust in the EU's vaccine approval process.
"just 20 positive coronavirus tests out of 128,000 people"
"most of the 20 were tested due to a known exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 case. Most were over 55. Half had a preexisting condition. None had a fever over 38.5°C. None needed hospitalisation."
The deal between Israel and Pfizer is awesome in terms of the data that’s coming out of it, we are all learning a lot more about the vaccine as a result.
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.
I have to agree with @Philip_Thompson. Simply, the voters are allowed to change their mind. That's why we have elections every four or five years.
If the UK had voted to Remain in 2016, and then UKIP had won the 2020 General Election, would any of us really have denied their right to call another EU Referendum?
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
Referendums were not explicitly retained by Westminster.
The constitution was, but advisory referendums were not.
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.
The Scottish Parliament's authority extends to almost everything the Scottish Parliament wishes to set a law on - they don't have to apply for Westminster's permission before they pass a bill - apart from reserved matters.
If the United Kingdom Supreme Court rules that an advisory referendum is not a reserved matter, so the Scottish Parliament has the authority to hold an advisory referendum, then it is a legally authorised referendum.
Yes, how many different ways can you restate the obvious? If my aunt had balls, she would have balls and if not, not. Nobody is disagreeing.
Looks to to like a big attempt to divert the blame for EU vaccine shitshow onto the vaccine companies, away from EU politicians. Aren't Pfizer also being sued by the Italians?
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.
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.
I have to agree with @Philip_Thompson. Simply, the voters are allowed to change their mind. That's why we have elections every four or five years.
If the UK had voted to Remain in 2016, and then UKIP had won the 2020 General Election, would any of us really have denied their right to call another EU Referendum?
Yes, absolutely.
Referendums on grave constitutional issues are very divisive, embittering and cause chaos for lots of people (as we have all seen). Scottish separation would, moreover, provoke deep recession in the rUK and probably depression and default in Scotland, leading to many years of tumult and pain, and all this after a global pandemic and the enormous strains of Brexit?
These votes should by definition be extremely rare, and Westminster - which governs for the wellbeing of the entire UK - is well within its rights to say it is far too soon to have another Sindyref.
Otherwise, the Scottish government would theoretically be able to call a vote every week. As they have a majority mandate blah blah
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.
I will be taking a deep dive into this issue quite soon. For now I'm going with my provisional of Sturgeon is neither colluding with Salmond nor stitching him up. I'll be surprised if I end up having to volte face but of course it is possible. And I'll tell you if so. I won't try to hide it.
Kyriakides said Brussels would now insist on being notified of any exports of vaccines from EU sites, including that produced by Pfizer on which the UK is reliant on European laboratories for supplies, raising the spectre of export bans....
Germany’s health minister, Jens Spahn, gave Berlin’s backing to the commission proposal. “We, as the EU, must be able to know whether and what vaccines are being exported from the EU,” he said. “Only that way can we understand whether our EU contracts with the producers are being served fairly. An obligation to get approval for vaccine exports on the EU level makes sense.”
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Unless they can back this up PDQ with authoritative expert info then this is very dangerous territory they are entering.
The contracts, which are confidential, include clauses that allow the Commission to terminate a contract with a vaccine producer.
How the heck would that help, even if AZ are playing silly buggers?
Also, 'British drugmaker'? Wiki tells me it is British-Swedish, is the latter part pretty ephemeral?
Genuine question.
Astra is Swedish
Their reference shareholder is the Wallenberg family
Their Deputy Chairman (iirc) is a Wallenberg appointment
Besides that, would I be right in suspecting that most of the AZN vaccine in use in the UK is produced in the UK, whereas most or all of the AZN vaccine promised to the EU is produced in Belgium - and it's the Belgian factory that's experiencing the production issues?
That being the case, it would be quite logical if they were fulfilling UK orders and falling short on EU ones at the same time.
We were told before Brexit, and you can understand the logic of this too, that the UK might end up stuck in the vaccine queue behind the EU countries because the EU is much larger and, therefore, more important. If there is any suggestion of a conspiracy to favour the UK over the EU27 then it's preposterous. Why would they deliberately set out to do that? It would be terrible for business.
Also the UK were promised 30 million doses out of 100 million order for last September....we have only received a fraction of that so far.
Kyriakides said Brussels would now insist on being notified of any exports of vaccines from EU sites, including that produced by Pfizer on which the UK is reliant on European laboratories for supplies, raising the spectre of export bans....
Germany’s health minister, Jens Spahn, gave Berlin’s backing to the commission proposal. “We, as the EU, must be able to know whether and what vaccines are being exported from the EU,” he said. “Only that way can we understand whether our EU contracts with the producers are being served fairly. An obligation to get approval for vaccine exports on the EU level makes sense.”
I mean this is a completely retrograde step, vaccine manufacturers need to start hedging their bets on manufacturing and shifting to the UK and Switzerland pronto.
I'm honestly shocked that this is even under consideration, it's an almost Chinese response to private industry.
Following experiences with friends and that BBC story about Oximeters, I've received so many requests for the list of items you recommended (including the Oximeter) that I've now got a little file on my desktop to Copy&Pasta to people asking.
Kyriakides said Brussels would now insist on being notified of any exports of vaccines from EU sites, including that produced by Pfizer on which the UK is reliant on European laboratories for supplies, raising the spectre of export bans....
Germany’s health minister, Jens Spahn, gave Berlin’s backing to the commission proposal. “We, as the EU, must be able to know whether and what vaccines are being exported from the EU,” he said. “Only that way can we understand whether our EU contracts with the producers are being served fairly. An obligation to get approval for vaccine exports on the EU level makes sense.”
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.
And who's better than us, would you say?
I wouldn't say anyone is better than us overall - though some countries can be better than others on specific issues and worse on others, but I would put other countries as our peers. Most of the 'first world' nations with a few exceptions I'd consider our peers.
When it comes to democracy Spain, like the United States of America, I would consider to be a 'flawed democracy' as opposed to a full democracy like the UK.
The Economist has a "Democracy Index" that categorises nations like this. They put Spain in the "full democracy" index, just, while the USA they rightly categorise as a flawed democracy - and have done for years not because of the past 12 months; but if like Spain you're sending baton wielding police officers to ballot boxes then I don't think you can call yourself a full democracy.
Would you consider Communist China to be our peer democratically?
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
Which bit of:
deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.
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.
There are some odd alliances forming. Best not to split the Sindy movement, I'd say, but I suppose that is a SOTBO and also, by the sounds of it, possibly too late. Me, I'm mainly coming at this from a betting angle atm. Sindy2 timing could potentially be a very good market for me if I can suss it out. By which I mean spot if the consensus is wrong. Sindy2 in 22 is about 4.5 on Betfair, don't know how you feel about that? On the actual issue, I'm torn. It would be so sad (for me) to see the UK bust up but I know if I were Scottish I would be voting Yes.
2022 is probably the sweet spot, after (hopefully) the Covid is no longer crippling society, and maybe just soon enough to assuage most of the I want it NOW lads. Actually I'm more optimistic about the former than the latter.
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Unless they can back this up PDQ with authoritative expert info then this is very dangerous territory they are entering.
It's mana from heaven for anti-vaxxers. I always thought it would be the British media that would fire the first shot of anti-vaxxer bullshit, turns out it's Germany.
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Unless they can back this up PDQ with authoritative expert info then this is very dangerous territory they are entering.
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Fuck. Doubling down.
The story's being tweeted about in german quite a lot now (I searched for acht prozent on twitter)
So, right now, the EU is simultaneously claiming the UK vaccine is basically useless, threatening to sue the UK vaccine maker for non delivery of the "useless" vaccine, and also threatening to stop paid-for exports of a different vaccine from the EU to the UK by Pfizer (a company which is also being harangued by the EU, and sued by Italy).
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
Which bit of:
deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.
White House Press Briefings will from now on be accompanied by a "politically correct TikTok dance." Just to trigger the Spectator.
In particular Dominic Green, the saxophonist-historian-Spectator pundit, who said Joe Biden's inauguration was marred by having "the Pledge of Allegiance delivered with sign language in a sort of politically-correct TikTok dance."
An assessment strangely NOT echoed by Biden's numerous critics from Mitch McConnell to Steve Bannon & Don Jr.
Said then, and say it again, Green's "witticism" is a RARE instance of the dumb and blind mocking the deaf.
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Unless they can back this up PDQ with authoritative expert info then this is very dangerous territory they are entering.
I'd much prefer an abject grovelling retraction.
A small note on page 33 in 6 weeks is probably what we can expect. It's absolutely ridiculous.
So, right now, the EU is simultaneously claiming the UK vaccine is basically useless, threatening to sue the UK vaccine maker for non delivery of the "useless" vaccine, and also threatening to stop paid-for exports of a different vaccine from the EU to the UK by Pfizer (a company which is also being harangued by the EU, and sued by Italy).
Quite gob smacking behaviour.
But Peston is delighted that somebody is having a worse week.....
So, right now, the EU is simultaneously claiming the UK vaccine is basically useless, threatening to sue the UK vaccine maker for non delivery of the "useless" vaccine, and also threatening to stop paid-for exports of a different vaccine from the EU to the UK by Pfizer (a company which is also being harangued by the EU, and sued by Italy).
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Unless they can back this up PDQ with authoritative expert info then this is very dangerous territory they are entering.
It's mana from heaven for anti-vaxxers. I always thought it would be the British media that would fire the first shot of anti-vaxxer bullshit, turns out it's Germany.
The BBC gave it a good shot tonight on the Six O'Clock News. Apparently some Catholics don't like the AZ vaccine because of abortion or something.
So, right now, the EU is simultaneously claiming the UK vaccine is basically useless, threatening to sue the UK vaccine maker for non delivery of the "useless" vaccine, and also threatening to stop paid-for exports of a different vaccine from the EU to the UK by Pfizer (a company which is also being harangued by the EU, and sued by Italy).
Quite gob smacking behaviour.
Well, somebody in the EU is claiming that. Hopefully they are wrong, but if so the German government has some questions to answer.
On the face of it, Astrazeneca has a serious case to answer. The assertion is that the EU paid considerable money up front for pre-production of the vaccine and for them to say months later, sorry our supplier screwed up and it turns out we don't have any, doesn't seem like a good answer. Not least because the EU is a big buyer and powerful regulator of their business.
I suspect we may see moves towards compulsory licensing of in-patent drugs.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And shit often multiples when trying to do things under pressure.
It's not great but were it me they were trying to pin the blame on I would be asking "So do you wish to cancel the contract" and watch their reaction.
And ideally I would be doing that on live TV so the world saw their reaction.
Not if you were in the pharma industry you wouldn’t
Governments are both regulators and largest customers. Fuck with them at your peril
So, right now, the EU is simultaneously claiming the UK vaccine is basically useless, threatening to sue the UK vaccine maker for non delivery of the "useless" vaccine, and also threatening to stop paid-for exports of a different vaccine from the EU to the UK by Pfizer (a company which is also being harangued by the EU, and sued by Italy).
Quite gob smacking behaviour.
That Pfizer supply also feeds into the US supply chain so it's not just the UK and Israel they're threatening here, it's the US and Pfizer is an American company.
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
Which bit of:
deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
Which bit of:
deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.
Kyriakides said Brussels would now insist on being notified of any exports of vaccines from EU sites, including that produced by Pfizer on which the UK is reliant on European laboratories for supplies, raising the spectre of export bans....
Germany’s health minister, Jens Spahn, gave Berlin’s backing to the commission proposal. “We, as the EU, must be able to know whether and what vaccines are being exported from the EU,” he said. “Only that way can we understand whether our EU contracts with the producers are being served fairly. An obligation to get approval for vaccine exports on the EU level makes sense.”
I mean this is a completely retrograde step, vaccine manufacturers need to start hedging their bets on manufacturing and shifting to the UK and Switzerland pronto.
I'm honestly shocked that this is even under consideration, it's an almost Chinese response to private industry.
Kyriakides said Brussels would now insist on being notified of any exports of vaccines from EU sites, including that produced by Pfizer on which the UK is reliant on European laboratories for supplies, raising the spectre of export bans....
Germany’s health minister, Jens Spahn, gave Berlin’s backing to the commission proposal. “We, as the EU, must be able to know whether and what vaccines are being exported from the EU,” he said. “Only that way can we understand whether our EU contracts with the producers are being served fairly. An obligation to get approval for vaccine exports on the EU level makes sense.”
I mean this is a completely retrograde step, vaccine manufacturers need to start hedging their bets on manufacturing and shifting to the UK and Switzerland pronto.
I'm honestly shocked that this is even under consideration, it's an almost Chinese response to private industry.
Moderna is being made in Switzerland right?
Yes. I'd suggest that Pfizer start looking at that option and UK manufacturing too PDQ.
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Unless they can back this up PDQ with authoritative expert info then this is very dangerous territory they are entering.
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Fuck. Doubling down.
FWIW the article is phrased as implied criticism of the German government, not the British - they say that Germany was relying on the AZ vaccine to supplement the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and although it was known that it would be not quite as effective, the very low effectivenesss for over-65s was a shock. It also says that approval for the vaccine is expected this week, though - perhaps for younger age groups, it doesn't say. It cites "Government circles" for the information.
I don't think it should be read in terms of EU-UK rivalry. That doesn't mean it's correct, but the issue about effectiveness for the over-65s did come up before, as the strange low-dose variant which produced a 90% effectivess subset had no over-65s at all. However, the main trial showed effectiveness well over 50%, so it'd be very odd if the true figure for the over-65s was 8%.
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
Which bit of:
deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
Which bit of:
deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.
Kyriakides said Brussels would now insist on being notified of any exports of vaccines from EU sites, including that produced by Pfizer on which the UK is reliant on European laboratories for supplies, raising the spectre of export bans....
Germany’s health minister, Jens Spahn, gave Berlin’s backing to the commission proposal. “We, as the EU, must be able to know whether and what vaccines are being exported from the EU,” he said. “Only that way can we understand whether our EU contracts with the producers are being served fairly. An obligation to get approval for vaccine exports on the EU level makes sense.”
I mean this is a completely retrograde step, vaccine manufacturers need to start hedging their bets on manufacturing and shifting to the UK and Switzerland pronto.
I'm honestly shocked that this is even under consideration, it's an almost Chinese response to private industry.
Moderna is being made in Switzerland right?
Yes. I'd suggest that Pfizer start looking at that option and UK manufacturing too PDQ.
What the hell happens if the vaccine manufacturers all react to this by ignoring the EU for the next six months?
It’s hardly as if they can’t sell all their output a hundred times over right now, do we end up having to close the borders as the whole continent spends the summer not leaving home?
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Fuck. Doubling down.
FWIW the article is phrased as implied criticism of the German government, not the British - they say that Germany was relying on the AZ vaccine to supplement the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and although it was known that it would be not quite as effective, the very low effectivenesss for over-65s was a shock. It also says that approval for the vaccine is expected this week, though - perhaps for younger age groups, it doesn't say. It cites "Government circles" for the information.
I don't think it should be read in terms of EU-UK rivalry. That doesn't mean it's correct, but the issue about effectiveness for the over-65s did come up before, as the strange low-dose variant which produced a 90% effectivess subset had no over-65s at all. However, the main trial showed effectiveness well over 50%, so it'd be very odd if the true figure for the over-65s was 8%.
And surely would have led to a rejection of its use in that age category by the MHRA given there's a vaccine with 90%+ efficacy for them already. A partial approval for under 55s could easily have been done, that it wasn't means the data for over 55s from the main trial is good enough.
On the face of it, Astrazeneca has a serious case to answer. The assertion is that the EU paid considerable money up front for pre-production of the vaccine and for them to say months later, sorry our supplier screwed up and it turns out we don't have any, doesn't seem like a good answer. Not least because the EU is a big buyer and powerful regulator of their business.
I suspect we may see moves towards compulsory licensing of in-patent drugs.
The exact same thing happened to the UK. Shit happens.
And you try and do something about it - if you can.
They can try things. But simply pointing to the contract and expecting more to magically appear is a weird thing to try.
Isn't the issue that AZN have unfairly prioritised one customer over another when output was less than promised?
Well that is a reasonable question which ought reasonably to have been raised. There might be some truth in it; there might be none at all.
The U.K. and EU supply chains are different. The issue is at the Novasep plant in Belgium (lower yields and a batch failure). The products are not interchangeable.
From the 'digital health and politics editor' of Handelsblatt - says " Starke Recherche der Kollegen" which I think means "strong research by colleagues". Wonder if he means his digital health and politics colleagues.. https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Fuck. Doubling down.
FWIW the article is phrased as implied criticism of the German government, not the British - they say that Germany was relying on the AZ vaccine to supplement the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and although it was known that it would be not quite as effective, the very low effectivenesss for over-65s was a shock. It also says that approval for the vaccine is expected this week, though - perhaps for younger age groups, it doesn't say. It cites "Government circles" for the information.
I don't think it should be read in terms of EU-UK rivalry. That doesn't mean it's correct, but the issue about effectiveness for the over-65s did come up before, as the strange low-dose variant which produced a 90% effectivess subset had no over-65s at all. However, the main trial showed effectiveness well over 50%, so it'd be very odd if the true figure for the over-65s was 8%.
It would be good if they disclosed their methodology for reaching such a startling conclusion.
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
But not part of the Edinburgh Agreement or on the ballot paper, or part of the winning side Bettertogether and its constituent parties' schtick? Glad you agree on that, or I assume you do since you ignored that part of my post (and was pretty much my whole post).
Obsession with the superficial wording ("generation", "rioting") is never a good sign.
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...
I think you'll find it was in the SNP Government's hefty tome....
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
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.
Is Margaret Ferrier still attending the Commons?
Dunno, but she got it later than the other two so less at risk.
Kyriakides said Brussels would now insist on being notified of any exports of vaccines from EU sites, including that produced by Pfizer on which the UK is reliant on European laboratories for supplies, raising the spectre of export bans....
Germany’s health minister, Jens Spahn, gave Berlin’s backing to the commission proposal. “We, as the EU, must be able to know whether and what vaccines are being exported from the EU,” he said. “Only that way can we understand whether our EU contracts with the producers are being served fairly. An obligation to get approval for vaccine exports on the EU level makes sense.”
I mean this is a completely retrograde step, vaccine manufacturers need to start hedging their bets on manufacturing and shifting to the UK and Switzerland pronto.
I'm honestly shocked that this is even under consideration, it's an almost Chinese response to private industry.
Moderna is being made in Switzerland right?
Yes. I'd suggest that Pfizer start looking at that option and UK manufacturing too PDQ.
What the hell happens if the vaccine manufacturers all react to this by ignoring the EU for the next six months?
It’s hardly as if they can’t sell all their output a hundred times over right now, do we end up having to close the borders as the whole continent spends the summer not leaving home?
Well a contract is a contract, though I'd suggest that Pfizer will consider their one with the EU cancelled if they put export restrictions up.
I'm still shocked that this is being considered, it's one thing to do what we did and make our contract contingent on domestic manufacturing it's quite another to tell companies that have already signed contracts with other clients that they can't export to to them by virtue of their geography. If the export restrictions don't go away then the companies will.
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.
I have to agree with @Philip_Thompson. Simply, the voters are allowed to change their mind. That's why we have elections every four or five years.
If the UK had voted to Remain in 2016, and then UKIP had won the 2020 General Election, would any of us really have denied their right to call another EU Referendum?
Yes, absolutely.
Referendums on grave constitutional issues are very divisive, embittering and cause chaos for lots of people (as we have all seen). Scottish separation would, moreover, provoke deep recession in the rUK and probably depression and default in Scotland, leading to many years of tumult and pain, and all this after a global pandemic and the enormous strains of Brexit?
These votes should by definition be extremely rare, and Westminster - which governs for the wellbeing of the entire UK - is well within its rights to say it is far too soon to have another Sindyref.
Otherwise, the Scottish government would theoretically be able to call a vote every week. As they have a majority mandate blah blah
And the voters would get sick of them, and would kick them out.
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.
And who's better than us, would you say?
I wouldn't say anyone is better than us overall - though some countries can be better than others on specific issues and worse on others, but I would put other countries as our peers. Most of the 'first world' nations with a few exceptions I'd consider our peers.
When it comes to democracy Spain, like the United States of America, I would consider to be a 'flawed democracy' as opposed to a full democracy like the UK.
The Economist has a "Democracy Index" that categorises nations like this. They put Spain in the "full democracy" index, just, while the USA they rightly categorise as a flawed democracy - and have done for years not because of the past 12 months; but if like Spain you're sending baton wielding police officers to ballot boxes then I don't think you can call yourself a full democracy.
Would you consider Communist China to be our peer democratically?
China are quite rightly low on the democracy index. Down at 153. We're MUCH higher at 14th. So not too shabby. Only 13 countries in the whole world are better than us. And these are pre Brexit rankings. Free now from the YOKE we might jump into the top 10.
Comments
Their reference shareholder is the Wallenberg family
Their Deputy Chairman (iirc) is a Wallenberg appointment
Here's something relevant from the write up of the AZN trials in the Lancet:
While the data presented here show that ChAdOx1 nCov-19 is efficacious against symptomatic disease, with most cases accruing in adults younger than 55 years of age so far, an important public health consideration is the morbidity and mortality of the disease in an older adult population and thus the potential efficacy in this age group. We have reported immunogenicity data showing similar immune responses following vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 in older adults, including those older than 70 years of age, when compared with those younger than 55 years. As older age groups were recruited later than younger age groups, there has been less time for cases to accrue and as a result, efficacy data in these cohorts are currently limited by the small number of cases, but additional data will be available in future analyses.
Thus, on the one hand the number of older patients included in the trial was too small to provide an accurate assessment of effectiveness specific to them (bad,) but on the other hand the immune reaction seen in the older patients was similar to that seen in the younger patients (good.) There may be something I'm missing here, but to a lay person there's no particular reason to suppose that similar immune response should not equal similar level of protection.
Anyway, if the difference in efficacy between the Oxford jab and the Pfizer jab is greater than we would expect based on the trial data, then this should become obvious very soon. More than a tenth of the adult population has now had one vaccine or the other, increasing numbers of them will have gone more than three weeks since they had it, and the authorities will be watching for instances of serious disease amongst vaccinated individuals like a hawk.
Me, I'm mainly coming at this from a betting angle atm. Sindy2 timing could potentially be a very good market for me if I can suss it out. By which I mean spot if the consensus is wrong. Sindy2 in 22 is about 4.5 on Betfair, don't know how you feel about that?
On the actual issue, I'm torn. It would be so sad (for me) to see the UK bust up but I know if I were Scottish I would be voting Yes.
Thanks to all those who've assuaged my slight guilt.
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about Scotland would remain in the hands of others, Introduction
The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. Preface
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. Page 556
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPRfJxz-ECE
We are waiting for a test launch of the second stage of the largest rocket in human history.
Built by roughneck welders on a beach.
With the most sophisticated rocket engines ever built.
By a company started because a Russian spat on a table, and one of the greatest rocket engine designers in the US was so bored with his days job... that he started building rocket engines in his garage.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1381150/eu-news-brexit-latest-sweden-leave-bloc-swexit-ursula-von-der-leyen-spt
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1353774309836279809?s=20
That being the case, it would be quite logical if they were fulfilling UK orders and falling short on EU ones at the same time.
We were told before Brexit, and you can understand the logic of this too, that the UK might end up stuck in the vaccine queue behind the EU countries because the EU is much larger and, therefore, more important. If there is any suggestion of a conspiracy to favour the UK over the EU27 then it's preposterous. Why would they deliberately set out to do that? It would be terrible for business.
Rate of people with at least one positive COVID-19 test result per 100,000 population in the rolling 7-day period ending
04/01/21 1,118.2
20/01/21 558.7
That's a 50% drop and will be significantly lower now (testing data not all in yet).
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=region&areaName=London
If it is, it is scandalously irresponsible
On the other hand, there are question marks about AZ in the USA, Australia....
But I still don't see where this info might have come from
https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1353775452830240770
"just 20 positive coronavirus tests out of 128,000 people"
"most of the 20 were tested due to a known exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 case. Most were over 55. Half had a preexisting condition. None had a fever over 38.5°C. None needed hospitalisation."
I used to learn all the words and sing along to rap songs as a teenager in the ‘90s, but ‘Rap God’ by Eminem is definitely past me now as a 40-something!
I was diagnosed with a vit D deficiency years ago, and told to take a supplement. At the sixth month stage a retest showed only modest progress and it took a whole year to get my level back to normal. So I doubt that taking even very high doses of vitamin pills is likely to make much difference during the timespan a virus infection will play out.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said Monday that leaked coronavirus data circulating online "may have been taken out of context" to sow distrust in the EU's vaccine approval process.
https://www.politico.eu/article/european-medicines-agency-ema-cyberattack-coronavirus-vaccine-data/
If the United Kingdom Supreme Court rules that an advisory referendum is not a reserved matter, so the Scottish Parliament has the authority to hold an advisory referendum, then it is a legally authorised referendum.
No, never heard of that happening before, tovarish.
Kyriakides' statement implied the British-Swedish company has sold those doses elsewhere.
https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-to-tighten-controls-on-vaccine-exports-after-astrazeneca-sells-elsewhere/
If the UK had voted to Remain in 2016, and then UKIP had won the 2020 General Election, would any of us really have denied their right to call another EU Referendum?
The constitution was, but advisory referendums were not.
The graph they are displaying only starts from 12th June.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data#levels-over-time
https://twitter.com/herrkloeckner/status/1353779850608259072?s=20
Referendums on grave constitutional issues are very divisive, embittering and cause chaos for lots of people (as we have all seen). Scottish separation would, moreover, provoke deep recession in the rUK and probably depression and default in Scotland, leading to many years of tumult and pain, and all this after a global pandemic and the enormous strains of Brexit?
These votes should by definition be extremely rare, and Westminster - which governs for the wellbeing of the entire UK - is well within its rights to say it is far too soon to have another Sindyref.
Otherwise, the Scottish government would theoretically be able to call a vote every week. As they have a majority mandate blah blah
Germany’s health minister, Jens Spahn, gave Berlin’s backing to the commission proposal. “We, as the EU, must be able to know whether and what vaccines are being exported from the EU,” he said. “Only that way can we understand whether our EU contracts with the producers are being served fairly. An obligation to get approval for vaccine exports on the EU level makes sense.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/25/eu-threatens-to-block-covid-vaccine-exports-amid-astrazeneca-shortfall?CMP=share_btn_tw
I'm honestly shocked that this is even under consideration, it's an almost Chinese response to private industry.
Following experiences with friends and that BBC story about Oximeters, I've received so many requests for the list of items you recommended (including the Oximeter) that I've now got a little file on my desktop to Copy&Pasta to people asking.
Thank you.
When it comes to democracy Spain, like the United States of America, I would consider to be a 'flawed democracy' as opposed to a full democracy like the UK.
The Economist has a "Democracy Index" that categorises nations like this. They put Spain in the "full democracy" index, just, while the USA they rightly categorise as a flawed democracy - and have done for years not because of the past 12 months; but if like Spain you're sending baton wielding police officers to ballot boxes then I don't think you can call yourself a full democracy.
Would you consider Communist China to be our peer democratically?
deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a
result that everyone will respect.
Has the SNP respected?
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130102230945/http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Agreement-final-for-signing.pdf
"So they lied" is a novel defence.
Quite gob smacking behaviour.
An assessment strangely NOT echoed by Biden's numerous critics from Mitch McConnell to Steve Bannon & Don Jr.
Said then, and say it again, Green's "witticism" is a RARE instance of the dumb and blind mocking the deaf.
Governments are both regulators and largest customers. Fuck with them at your peril
I don't think it should be read in terms of EU-UK rivalry. That doesn't mean it's correct, but the issue about effectiveness for the over-65s did come up before, as the strange low-dose variant which produced a 90% effectivess subset had no over-65s at all. However, the main trial showed effectiveness well over 50%, so it'd be very odd if the true figure for the over-65s was 8%.
It’s hardly as if they can’t sell all their output a hundred times over right now, do we end up having to close the borders as the whole continent spends the summer not leaving home?
I'm still shocked that this is being considered, it's one thing to do what we did and make our contract contingent on domestic manufacturing it's quite another to tell companies that have already signed contracts with other clients that they can't export to to them by virtue of their geography. If the export restrictions don't go away then the companies will.
Problem solved.