Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.
And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
Except that AZN produces no vaccines for the UK within EU territory.
Yep, I know. Our supply is domestic, right? But none for other markets outwith EU? If not, then what on earth is everyone getting excited about?
"Taken shortcuts"....that still implies things not done properly.
I'd say it simply implies what has happened in some areas. The size of the emergency has justified (in our view) taking more risk for greater speed. For example, the dropped 2nd dose in favour of more 1st doses.
Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.
And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
Except that AZN produces no vaccines for the UK within EU territory.
Yep, I know. Our supply is domestic, right? But none for other markets outwith EU? If not, then what on earth is everyone getting excited about?
My statement was incorrect. Others have pointed out a small portion is made in the EU. The concern is the Pfizer deliveries from Belgium.
Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.
And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
Except that AZN produces no vaccines for the UK within EU territory.
Yep, I know. Our supply is domestic, right? But none for other markets outwith EU? If not, then what on earth is everyone getting excited about?
The purported threat to Pfizer supplies because of this export registration scheme.
Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.
And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a short-cut.
In this case, it's true: the normal approval process was short-cut - for example, by running different non-dependent stages in parallel. Doing so took risks - had one stage failed then there'd have been a much higher wastage rate - but didn't compromise the ultimate outcome.
This a minefield topic but I would make the point that you can get away with regulatory shortcuts more safely when those being regulated function well than when they have process issues. The Pfizer submission was textbook, so no problem giving them the nod; the Astrazeneca submission was a mess.
A couple of threads comparing MHRA, EMA and FDA approaches:
The AZ one was a mess because the places where tests could be conducted at the time made a mess of the tests. Pressing needs however wouldn't let them start again.
Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.
And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
Except that AZN produces no vaccines for the UK within EU territory.
Yep, I know. Our supply is domestic, right? But none for other markets outwith EU? If not, then what on earth is everyone getting excited about?
German MEP yesterday suggesting that UK Oxford/AstraZeneca supplies could be diverted from the UK to the EU.....
Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.
And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
Except that AZN produces no vaccines for the UK within EU territory.
Yep, I know. Our supply is domestic, right? But none for other markets outwith EU? If not, then what on earth is everyone getting excited about?
There was some initial supply from an AZN EU plant to the UK. The UK plant as a bit late and underperforming, at first. Very common to have production start up problems at new industrial facilities...
The issue for the EU is that the plants in the EU which are dedicated to their AZN vaccine deliveries are coming up short, in terms of production.
So they were waving ideas around about "regulating" vaccine export from the EU. Including the Pfizer vaccine.
All of the UK Pfizer vaccine is coming from inside the EU.
So this *could* have implications for the Pfizer deliveries to the UK. AZN in the UK would be untouched.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Case, death and hospitalisation rates in Scotland have been running at half the English levels for some time now. That's a big difference in outcomes. Sturgeon has made some bad mistakes on Covid, as has Johnson, Sturgeon seems capable of learning from her mistakes, while Johnson keeps making the same mistakes again and again, with the result that tens of thousands of people will die, who would otherwise live.
The SNP are perfectly capable of mucking up, but almost no-one so far has made money betting on them doing so.
Excess deaths and death certificate numbers in Scotland appear to be very similar to the English ones though. It is only the 'within 28 days of a test' figure that is lower.
Perhaps the lack of testing skewed the numbers?
Keep kidding yourself that the numbers lie, or take some arithmetic education. How do you manage to get 1045 per million be same as 1537 per million. Scotland numbers horrific nonetheless.
The data I have is:
Deaths / million within 28 days etc: England: 1,453 Scotland: 1,001
Lower, but much closer than you are implying. Most of that difference is probably due to the Kent variant. I'm sure we could find an equivalent subsample of England that has a lower rate than Scotland.
Mr. D, reminds me of the Romans bitching because Hannibal used battlefield tactics instead of just arranging his men in a straight line and marching at them.
Plus - they're using elephants! Can they do that? Is it allowed? Looks like cheating to me....
Without wanting to keep going back to Scotland, the mandate issue is easy to solve. In 2019 the Tories ran on a clear manifesto pledge that a vote for a Tory government is a vote to Get Brexit Done. So the same would be true for an SNP manifesto that a vote for an SNP government is a vote for Sindyref2: The Smell of Salmond Fear.
If - and I'm certain they will - the SNP have the need for a new referendum front and centre of their manifesto, and form the government after the election, the mandate is clear. If Unionists want to pretend there is no mandate and boycott the referendum that is no different to the millions of people who attack governments and politicians but do not vote.
And (presumably) the Scottish Greens. Not so probably Slab (though the decision there hasn't been made yet, has it?)
Yes. Whilst it is wise to ignore the buffoon @HYUFD on issues related to Scotland, he is in absolute denial that a *working* majority is what any government needs. The SNP with the Greens have a working majority now. If the same parties can form a pro-independence government after the election where both ran on that platform, that is just as much of a mandate as if one party only won outright.
It is important for any democracy to have multiple parties. An independent Scotland will NOT be the personal fiefdom of the SNP. Support for independence is NOT support for the perpetual rule of the SNP.
Fighting for independence is the only thing that keeps the SNP together. Come independence that party will split.
I've got to say (and you know I'm usually an admirer of Ms Sturgeon) I'm amazed at the tolerance of the Scots putting up with Nicola's separatist obsessions while everyone is fighting to stay alive in the middle of the worst pandemic for a century...
Totally unlike Brexit right enough
Malc!!!!!! How are you you old rascal?
As already stated if were still "IN" I personally expect or want HMG to be harping on about our future EU membership in the middle of a pandemic and if they did I would think they had taken leave of their senses.
I've got to say (and you know I'm usually an admirer of Ms Sturgeon) I'm amazed at the tolerance of the Scots putting up with Nicola's separatist obsessions while everyone is fighting to stay alive in the middle of the worst pandemic for a century...
It’s not like it’s important stuff like Brexit...
If we were still "IN" I wouldn't be expecting the government to be harping on about an EU referendum at the moment...
Fact is, as a result of Brexit the Scottish vaxx numbers - poor as they are - will still be running at ten times the number if we had not left the EU.
So, how about a little gratitude, eh Scotland, for the UK voting to Brexit?
Aye, right.....
Not true, surely. UK could still havew gone it alone. As with so many other things, despite the claims of Brexiters.
"Could" doing a lot of heavy lifting there. At best, post Indy, Scottish negotiators would have gone in after the rUK ones and said "we'll take the same deal for a tenth of their numbers of vaccine." Maybe with a 5% uplift on price, to even get through Big Pharma's front door.
just the usual bollox trying to pretend we are too small and too stupid to do anything for ourselves but need big Daddy in Westminster as we are useless.
I've got to say (and you know I'm usually an admirer of Ms Sturgeon) I'm amazed at the tolerance of the Scots putting up with Nicola's separatist obsessions while everyone is fighting to stay alive in the middle of the worst pandemic for a century...
It’s not like it’s important stuff like Brexit...
If we were still "IN" I wouldn't be expecting the government to be harping on about an EU referendum at the moment...
Fact is, as a result of Brexit the Scottish vaxx numbers - poor as they are - will still be running at ten times the number if we had not left the EU.
So, how about a little gratitude, eh Scotland, for the UK voting to Brexit?
Aye, right.....
Not true, surely. UK could still havew gone it alone. As with so many other things, despite the claims of Brexiters.
"Could" doing a lot of heavy lifting there. At best, post Indy, Scottish negotiators would have gone in after the rUK ones and said "we'll take the same deal for a tenth of their numbers of vaccine." Maybe with a 5% uplift on price, to even get through Big Pharma's front door.
just the usual bollox trying to pretend we are too small and too stupid to do anything for ourselves but need big Daddy in Westminster as we are useless.
Isn't it remarkable that the SNP are getting no flak over the fact that they criticised Matt Hancock back in July 2020 for not signing up to the EU-wide vaccine procurement scheme?
Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.
And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
Except that AZN produces no vaccines for the UK within EU territory.
Yep, I know. Our supply is domestic, right? But none for other markets outwith EU? If not, then what on earth is everyone getting excited about?
German MEP yesterday suggesting that UK Oxford/AstraZeneca supplies could be diverted from the UK to the EU.....
Well, we all knew many MEPs were tools. I give you Farage and Hannan as key exhibits. Add that German MEP too :-)
I don't normally like or respect Peston but this is simple, factual and reads entirely correctly.
You like him when he says things that you like?
No I like him when he reports actual facts rather than what his "sources" say that turns out to be complete and utter codswallop.
Ok. Let's test this.
When was the last time he reported something strongly sourced and truthful that you DIDN'T like?
Test passed: I can't think of anything strongly sourced and truthful that I didn't like, that is my point. What is yours?
When he reports authoritatively that there is going to be no further economic support for people during the pandemic, an hour before the Chancellor hosts a press conference announcing a furlough scheme, that is an example of what I dislike. He makes up nonsense from his "sources" hoping to be "first" with a story rather than reporting actual facts.
Without wanting to keep going back to Scotland, the mandate issue is easy to solve. In 2019 the Tories ran on a clear manifesto pledge that a vote for a Tory government is a vote to Get Brexit Done. So the same would be true for an SNP manifesto that a vote for an SNP government is a vote for Sindyref2: The Smell of Salmond Fear.
If - and I'm certain they will - the SNP have the need for a new referendum front and centre of their manifesto, and form the government after the election, the mandate is clear. If Unionists want to pretend there is no mandate and boycott the referendum that is no different to the millions of people who attack governments and politicians but do not vote.
It isn't because without Westminster agreeing the referendum is legal and agreeing to implement its result it is nothing more than a glorified equivalent of Express polls for Nationalist voters if Unionists boycott it, as they would
Of course its more, it would be a legally-held, legally-authorise referendum.
The EU didn't agree to the 2016 UK advisory referendum on EU membership, it was held by the national government. Holyrood is Scotland's national government. Same principle applies exactly.
If Remainers had boycotted the EU referendum then it would still have been won by leavers.
We are all in the happy position of knowing that what HYUFD thinks on this (or indeed any) matter isn't actually relevant to the real world. HYUFD says "it isn't legal" isn't the same as it not being legal.
I think the main response to any HYUFD comment on the legality of such a poll - or something about the Catalans, or barbed wire, or gunboats - should be "that's nice dear".
Without wanting to keep going back to Scotland, the mandate issue is easy to solve. In 2019 the Tories ran on a clear manifesto pledge that a vote for a Tory government is a vote to Get Brexit Done. So the same would be true for an SNP manifesto that a vote for an SNP government is a vote for Sindyref2: The Smell of Salmond Fear.
If - and I'm certain they will - the SNP have the need for a new referendum front and centre of their manifesto, and form the government after the election, the mandate is clear. If Unionists want to pretend there is no mandate and boycott the referendum that is no different to the millions of people who attack governments and politicians but do not vote.
It isn't because without Westminster agreeing the referendum is legal and agreeing to implement its result it is nothing more than a glorified equivalent of Express polls for Nationalist voters if Unionists boycott it, as they would
Of course its more, it would be a legally-held, legally-authorise referendum.
The EU didn't agree to the 2016 UK advisory referendum on EU membership, it was held by the national government. Holyrood is Scotland's national government. Same principle applies exactly.
If Remainers had boycotted the EU referendum then it would still have been won by leavers.
It was Westminster that had to agree the EU referendum and Westminster that had to vote to implement the result, which it did not do until 2020, as under our constitution Westminster is sovereign via Crown in Parliament.
The same applies to Scotland, Holyrood is merely a creation of Westminster, technically Westminster could scrap Holyrood tomorrow (even if politically that may not be advisable) and all Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
So when Boris and Westminster refuse to allow a legal indyref2 and refuse to implement the result and after Unionists have boycotted it it will be irrrelevant
Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.
And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
Except that AZN produces no vaccines for the UK within EU territory.
Yep, I know. Our supply is domestic, right? But none for other markets outwith EU? If not, then what on earth is everyone getting excited about?
There was some initial supply from an AZN EU plant to the UK. The UK plant as a bit late and underperforming, at first. Very common to have production start up problems at new industrial facilities...
The issue for the EU is that the plants in the EU which are dedicated to their AZN vaccine deliveries are coming up short, in terms of production.
So they were waving ideas around about "regulating" vaccine export from the EU. Including the Pfizer vaccine.
All of the UK Pfizer vaccine is coming from inside the EU.
So this *could* have implications for the Pfizer deliveries to the UK. AZN in the UK would be untouched.
Add in that because of the shift to 12 weeks from 3 weeks for the second Pfizer dose, the UK would have had its oldies hanging for their second dose - undermining the UK's strategy. And giving the EU a negotiating edge in prising some of our deliveries their way.
Isn't it remarkable that the SNP are getting no flak over the fact that they criticised Matt Hancock back in July 2020 for not signing up to the EU-wide vaccine procurement scheme?
Scots seem to have very short memories...
The SNP’s Shadow Brexit Secretary Dr Philippa Whitford MP said: “At a time when the UK should be accelerating efforts to work with our EU partners towards finding a vaccine, it is concerning that the UK government has instead rejected the opportunity to take part in yet another EU-wide programme.
“The UK government’s short-sighted and increasingly isolationist approach does nothing but hinder the ability to tackle the virus effectively.
Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.
And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a short-cut.
In this case, it's true: the normal approval process was short-cut - for example, by running different non-dependent stages in parallel. Doing so took risks - had one stage failed then there'd have been a much higher wastage rate - but didn't compromise the ultimate outcome.
This a minefield topic but I would make the point that you can get away with regulatory shortcuts more safely when those being regulated function well than when they have process issues. The Pfizer submission was textbook, so no problem giving them the nod; the Astrazeneca submission was a mess.
A couple of threads comparing MHRA, EMA and FDA approaches:
The AZ one was a mess because the places where tests could be conducted at the time made a mess of the tests. Pressing needs however wouldn't let them start again.
I agree entirely with that. We need those vaccines out there, and the Astrazeneca drug itself is probably fine. Thing is, regulators are supposed to be evidence led. In this case the data is partly missing and inconsistent. So do they say, despite this we have enough to go on, there don't seem to be any specific objections to proceeding? Or do they say, we're doing this by the book and we need the answers to our questions and the data to support those answers? Not surprisingly, regulators are taking different views on this.
This story is slowly making its way into the public consciousness and lots of my remain voting friends are starting to notice the EU vaccine export ban. One is saying "see we shouldn't have left" the rest think the idea is absolutely horrible and it's turning them against the EU.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Case, death and hospitalisation rates in Scotland have been running at half the English levels for some time now. That's a big difference in outcomes. Sturgeon has made some bad mistakes on Covid, as has Johnson, Sturgeon seems capable of learning from her mistakes, while Johnson keeps making the same mistakes again and again, with the result that tens of thousands of people will die, who would otherwise live.
The SNP are perfectly capable of mucking up, but almost no-one so far has made money betting on them doing so.
Excess deaths and death certificate numbers in Scotland appear to be very similar to the English ones though. It is only the 'within 28 days of a test' figure that is lower.
Perhaps the lack of testing skewed the numbers?
Keep kidding yourself that the numbers lie, or take some arithmetic education. How do you manage to get 1045 per million be same as 1537 per million. Scotland numbers horrific nonetheless.
The data I have is:
Deaths / million within 28 days etc: England: 1,453 Scotland: 1,001
Lower, but much closer than you are implying. Most of that difference is probably due to the Kent variant. I'm sure we could find an equivalent subsample of England that has a lower rate than Scotland.
I can only go with data published, no idea where you get yours but it has been consistent throughout that Scotland was 65%-70% the going rate of England. Key point is both are terrible in the grand scheme of things and no consolation that Scotland is a bit lower than England, more relevant that Australia has under 1000 in total.
Without wanting to keep going back to Scotland, the mandate issue is easy to solve. In 2019 the Tories ran on a clear manifesto pledge that a vote for a Tory government is a vote to Get Brexit Done. So the same would be true for an SNP manifesto that a vote for an SNP government is a vote for Sindyref2: The Smell of Salmond Fear.
If - and I'm certain they will - the SNP have the need for a new referendum front and centre of their manifesto, and form the government after the election, the mandate is clear. If Unionists want to pretend there is no mandate and boycott the referendum that is no different to the millions of people who attack governments and politicians but do not vote.
It isn't because without Westminster agreeing the referendum is legal and agreeing to implement its result it is nothing more than a glorified equivalent of Express polls for Nationalist voters if Unionists boycott it, as they would
Of course its more, it would be a legally-held, legally-authorise referendum.
The EU didn't agree to the 2016 UK advisory referendum on EU membership, it was held by the national government. Holyrood is Scotland's national government. Same principle applies exactly.
If Remainers had boycotted the EU referendum then it would still have been won by leavers.
It was Westminster that had to agree the EU referendum and Westminster that had to vote to implement the result, which it did not do until 2020, as under our constitution Westminster is sovereign via Crown in Parliament.
The same applies to Scotland, Holyrood is merely a creation of Westminster, technically Westminster could scrap Holyrood tomorrow (even if politically that may not be advisable) and all Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
So when Boris and Westminster refuse to allow a legal indyref2 and refuse to implement the result and after Unionists have boycotted it it will be irrrelevant
If I were the publisher of such a respected organ, I think I’d be wanting the editor’s head on a plate this morning. Not necessarily in a metaphorical sense, either!
The sacking of their new data analysis intern Diana Abbotz certainly wouldn't go amiss...
It’s actually quite surprising it’s taken this long for a newspaper to make such a monumental screw-up over the pandemic. I was pretty sure one of the UK papers would have done it by now, but they seem to have mostly swerved it by leading with crappy opinion pieces rather than crappy fact pieces.
Have any politicians been pushing the Handelsblatt narrative?
Not many and not openly from the looks of it. Concerning, but shouldn't be be suggested as wider than it is, despite a rather petty response from institutions yesterday.
Without wanting to keep going back to Scotland, the mandate issue is easy to solve. In 2019 the Tories ran on a clear manifesto pledge that a vote for a Tory government is a vote to Get Brexit Done. So the same would be true for an SNP manifesto that a vote for an SNP government is a vote for Sindyref2: The Smell of Salmond Fear.
If - and I'm certain they will - the SNP have the need for a new referendum front and centre of their manifesto, and form the government after the election, the mandate is clear. If Unionists want to pretend there is no mandate and boycott the referendum that is no different to the millions of people who attack governments and politicians but do not vote.
It isn't because without Westminster agreeing the referendum is legal and agreeing to implement its result it is nothing more than a glorified equivalent of Express polls for Nationalist voters if Unionists boycott it, as they would
Of course its more, it would be a legally-held, legally-authorise referendum.
The EU didn't agree to the 2016 UK advisory referendum on EU membership, it was held by the national government. Holyrood is Scotland's national government. Same principle applies exactly.
If Remainers had boycotted the EU referendum then it would still have been won by leavers.
It was Westminster that had to agree the EU referendum and Westminster that had to vote to implement the result, which it did not do until 2020, as under our constitution Westminster is sovereign via Crown in Parliament.
The same applies to Scotland, Holyrood is merely a creation of Westminster, technically Westminster could scrap Holyrood tomorrow (even if politically that may not be advisable) and all Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
So when Boris and Westminster refuse to allow a legal indyref2 and refuse to implement the result and after Unionists have boycotted it it will be irrrelevant
That's nice dear.
H/T RochdalePioneers.
It is the stated position of the UK government and the UK PM, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no legal indyref2 will be allowed by this Tory government.
So what happens at Holyrood in May is irrelevant, the UK government will refuse a legal indyref2, will ignore the result of any unauthorised Scottish referendum and Unionists will boycott it.
So until the 2024 general election and for the rest of this Westminster Parliament Sturgeon can 'scream and scream until I'm sick' but Boris will not care less, will ignore her and get on with his day job
Without wanting to keep going back to Scotland, the mandate issue is easy to solve. In 2019 the Tories ran on a clear manifesto pledge that a vote for a Tory government is a vote to Get Brexit Done. So the same would be true for an SNP manifesto that a vote for an SNP government is a vote for Sindyref2: The Smell of Salmond Fear.
If - and I'm certain they will - the SNP have the need for a new referendum front and centre of their manifesto, and form the government after the election, the mandate is clear. If Unionists want to pretend there is no mandate and boycott the referendum that is no different to the millions of people who attack governments and politicians but do not vote.
It isn't because without Westminster agreeing the referendum is legal and agreeing to implement its result it is nothing more than a glorified equivalent of Express polls for Nationalist voters if Unionists boycott it, as they would
Of course its more, it would be a legally-held, legally-authorise referendum.
The EU didn't agree to the 2016 UK advisory referendum on EU membership, it was held by the national government. Holyrood is Scotland's national government. Same principle applies exactly.
If Remainers had boycotted the EU referendum then it would still have been won by leavers.
It was Westminster that had to agree the EU referendum and Westminster that had to vote to implement the result, which it did not do until 2020, as under our constitution Westminster is sovereign via Crown in Parliament.
The same applies to Scotland, Holyrood is merely a creation of Westminster, technically Westminster could scrap Holyrood tomorrow (even if politically that may not be advisable) and all Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
So when Boris and Westminster refuse to allow a legal indyref2 and refuse to implement the result and after Unionists have boycotted it it will be irrrelevant
Without wanting to keep going back to Scotland, the mandate issue is easy to solve. In 2019 the Tories ran on a clear manifesto pledge that a vote for a Tory government is a vote to Get Brexit Done. So the same would be true for an SNP manifesto that a vote for an SNP government is a vote for Sindyref2: The Smell of Salmond Fear.
If - and I'm certain they will - the SNP have the need for a new referendum front and centre of their manifesto, and form the government after the election, the mandate is clear. If Unionists want to pretend there is no mandate and boycott the referendum that is no different to the millions of people who attack governments and politicians but do not vote.
It isn't because without Westminster agreeing the referendum is legal and agreeing to implement its result it is nothing more than a glorified equivalent of Express polls for Nationalist voters if Unionists boycott it, as they would
Of course its more, it would be a legally-held, legally-authorise referendum.
The EU didn't agree to the 2016 UK advisory referendum on EU membership, it was held by the national government. Holyrood is Scotland's national government. Same principle applies exactly.
If Remainers had boycotted the EU referendum then it would still have been won by leavers.
It was Westminster that had to agree the EU referendum and Westminster that had to vote to implement the result, which it did not do until 2020, as under our constitution Westminster is sovereign via Crown in Parliament.
The same applies to Scotland, Holyrood is merely a creation of Westminster, technically Westminster could scrap Holyrood tomorrow (even if politically that may not be advisable) and all Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
So when Boris and Westminster refuse to allow a legal indyref2 and refuse to implement the result and after Unionists have boycotted it it will be irrrelevant
That's nice dear.
H/T RochdalePioneers.
It is the stated position of the UK government and the UK PM, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no legal indyref2 will be allowed by this Tory government.
So what happens at Holyrood in May is irrelevant, the UK government will refuse a legal indyref2, will ignore the result of any unauthorised UK referendum and Unionists will boycott it.
So until the 2024 general election and for the rest of this Westminster Parliament Sturgeon can 'scream and scream until I'm sick' but Boris will not care less, will ignore her and get on with his day job
Without Brexit that argument would be completely valid but Brexit rather changed the complexion of the relationship between the Scottish people and the rest of the UK.
I don't normally like or respect Peston but this is simple, factual and reads entirely correctly.
You like him when he says things that you like?
No I like him when he reports actual facts rather than what his "sources" say that turns out to be complete and utter codswallop.
Ok. Let's test this.
When was the last time he reported something strongly sourced and truthful that you DIDN'T like?
Test passed: I can't think of anything strongly sourced and truthful that I didn't like, that is my point. What is yours?
When he reports authoritatively that there is going to be no further economic support for people during the pandemic, an hour before the Chancellor hosts a press conference announcing a furlough scheme, that is an example of what I dislike. He makes up nonsense from his "sources" hoping to be "first" with a story rather than reporting actual facts.
My point is that you might be - I suspect are - conflating what you like to hear from Pesto with the quality of what you hear from Pesto. So if he says something you approve of (e.g. this AZ story knocking the EU) you deem it good reporting. If it's something you don't like (e.g. no furlough extension) you deem it dross reporting.
To show this is not the case is quite easy. We simply need to find the last time - or any time - he reported something well sourced and truthful that you did not like. That was hence my question and you answered in the negative. Test FAILED, therefore, not passed, and the initial assertion still stands.
You only like him when he says something you like.
This story is slowly making its way into the public consciousness and lots of my remain voting friends are starting to notice the EU vaccine export ban. One is saying "see we shouldn't have left" the rest think the idea is absolutely horrible and it's turning them against the EU.
I didn't know you were a good friend of Scott n Paste...
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Sorry, sometimes this work stuff gets in the way. I have thought about that a good deal. I have never not voted in my life and it goes against the grain. I am honestly not sure.
Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.
And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
I think that's a reasonable view (& hope that it's true). From their POV, it has the added benefit of some political posturing, and hopefully today's spat is no more than that.
How many UK journalists have published really dangerous bullshit that endangers countless lives?
I thought that was a recurring squawk on here? Folk demanding enquiries into their role in the pandemic and everything.
They've largely been dickheads. But I've yet to see such pernicious behaviour as Handelsblatt is still at. Their story is still up, 16 hours on. Their journalists' tweets are all still up. People are still reading this dangerous bullshit and spreading it around. It won't help grow any roses.
What they doing with them? Playing massive game of Jenga?
It depends where there are in the supply chain - remember that there is the vaccine, the bottle vaccine and the bottled, approved vaccine. Then there is actual distribution.
Listening to the mad old dear in Epping you'd think "the will of the people" was something you can just ignore in a democracy. Let us see how the actual politicians - even the Tory ones - deal with such basic concepts as representation and legitimacy. I believe they will say all kinds of things to dismiss and denigrate the idea of a referendum without saying that the views of Scotland can be ignored. Because as the people who actually have to be re-elected in Scotland they know they can't say such stupid things.
What they doing with them? Playing massive game of Jenga?
It depends where there are in the supply chain - remember that there is the vaccine, the bottle vaccine and the bottled, approved vaccine. Then there is actual distribution.
One imagines that to be considered delivered it's at the distribution stage, not any of the earlier stages.
This story is slowly making its way into the public consciousness and lots of my remain voting friends are starting to notice the EU vaccine export ban. One is saying "see we shouldn't have left" the rest think the idea is absolutely horrible and it's turning them against the EU.
I didn't know you were a good friend of Scott n Paste...
Question. Is it pasting tweets itself that you dislike - the way they format on a phone perhaps - or the content of the tweets?
Dismissing them as a blanket suggests some irritation about the things the tweets are saying that you would prefer weren't made so public...
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Case, death and hospitalisation rates in Scotland have been running at half the English levels for some time now. That's a big difference in outcomes. Sturgeon has made some bad mistakes on Covid, as has Johnson, Sturgeon seems capable of learning from her mistakes, while Johnson keeps making the same mistakes again and again, with the result that tens of thousands of people will die, who would otherwise live.
The SNP are perfectly capable of mucking up, but almost no-one so far has made money betting on them doing so.
Excess deaths and death certificate numbers in Scotland appear to be very similar to the English ones though. It is only the 'within 28 days of a test' figure that is lower.
Perhaps the lack of testing skewed the numbers?
Keep kidding yourself that the numbers lie, or take some arithmetic education. How do you manage to get 1045 per million be same as 1537 per million. Scotland numbers horrific nonetheless.
The data I have is:
Deaths / million within 28 days etc: England: 1,453 Scotland: 1,001
Lower, but much closer than you are implying. Most of that difference is probably due to the Kent variant. I'm sure we could find an equivalent subsample of England that has a lower rate than Scotland.
I can only go with data published, no idea where you get yours but it has been consistent throughout that Scotland was 65%-70% the going rate of England. Key point is both are terrible in the grand scheme of things and no consolation that Scotland is a bit lower than England, more relevant that Australia has under 1000 in total.
I don't normally like or respect Peston but this is simple, factual and reads entirely correctly.
You like him when he says things that you like?
No I like him when he reports actual facts rather than what his "sources" say that turns out to be complete and utter codswallop.
Ok. Let's test this.
When was the last time he reported something strongly sourced and truthful that you DIDN'T like?
Test passed: I can't think of anything strongly sourced and truthful that I didn't like, that is my point. What is yours?
When he reports authoritatively that there is going to be no further economic support for people during the pandemic, an hour before the Chancellor hosts a press conference announcing a furlough scheme, that is an example of what I dislike. He makes up nonsense from his "sources" hoping to be "first" with a story rather than reporting actual facts.
My point is that you might be - I suspect are - conflating what you like to hear from Pesto with the quality of what you hear from Pesto. So if he says something you approve of (e.g. this AZ story knocking the EU) you deem it good reporting. If it's something you don't like (e.g. no furlough extension) you deem it dross reporting.
To show this is not the case is quite easy. We simply need to find the last time - or any time - he reported something well sourced and truthful that you did not like. That was hence my question and you answered in the negative. Test FAILED, therefore, not passed, and the initial assertion still stands.
You only like him when he says something you like.
Yes - I must admit my eyebrows raised when I saw it was Peston - maybe he had an epiphany after telephonelinegate?
How many UK journalists have published really dangerous bullshit that endangers countless lives?
I thought that was a recurring squawk on here? Folk demanding enquiries into their role in the pandemic and everything.
They've largely been dickheads. But I've yet to see such pernicious behaviour as Handelsblatt is still at. Their story is still up, 16 hours on. Their journalists' tweets are all still up. People are still reading this dangerous bullshit and spreading it around. It won't help grow any roses.
Did you not see the Sunday People this week? They falsely claimed the UK government was knocking off grannines in care homes left, right and centre with its 12 week protocol for Pfizer, because some people who had been vaccinated had died...not necessarily of covid, they had just sadly passed away, and given the roll out most will have been vaccinated less than 3 weeks ago and not with Pfizer. They had no data for any, just scare story of grannies dying, government evil, with none of it based on any facts other than some very old fragile people in care homes have passed away so far this year, who had had a jab.
I presume PM-elect Piers Moron thinks this problem with vaccinations in the EU is all Hancock's fault...
ManCock has been a walking crying disaster. He has nothing to do with the EU procurement of jabs, the people involved in doing so and whether or not they are also walking crying disasters.
Its not either / or. It can be both / neither because they are not connected. Can you grasp that?
I don't normally like or respect Peston but this is simple, factual and reads entirely correctly.
You like him when he says things that you like?
No I like him when he reports actual facts rather than what his "sources" say that turns out to be complete and utter codswallop.
Ok. Let's test this.
When was the last time he reported something strongly sourced and truthful that you DIDN'T like?
Test passed: I can't think of anything strongly sourced and truthful that I didn't like, that is my point. What is yours?
When he reports authoritatively that there is going to be no further economic support for people during the pandemic, an hour before the Chancellor hosts a press conference announcing a furlough scheme, that is an example of what I dislike. He makes up nonsense from his "sources" hoping to be "first" with a story rather than reporting actual facts.
My point is that you might be - I suspect are - conflating what you like to hear from Pesto with the quality of what you hear from Pesto. So if he says something you approve of (e.g. this AZ story knocking the EU) you deem it good reporting. If it's something you don't like (e.g. no furlough extension) you deem it dross reporting.
To show this is not the case is quite easy. We simply need to find the last time - or any time - he reported something well sourced and truthful that you did not like. That was hence my question and you answered in the negative. Test FAILED, therefore, not passed, and the initial assertion still stands.
You only like him when he says something you like.
You're wrong, you're getting it backwards. I like to hear actual facts from Peston not his made up nonsense.
If it were not the case you would need to find something well sourced and truthful that I did not like. If that existed then it would be as you say. I don't dislike anything well sourced and truthful, I like the truth whatever it may be. If he was reporting something well sourced and truthful but I still didn't like it then I would be hypocritical.
Even if something is "bad news", even if something goes against my politics, if a journalist is reporting it "well sourced and truthful" then I don't dislike the messenger for it. Its the truth then and we need to accept it and move on.
The problem is most of what Peston does is speculation that turns out to be wrong.
How many UK journalists have published really dangerous bullshit that endangers countless lives?
I thought that was a recurring squawk on here? Folk demanding enquiries into their role in the pandemic and everything.
They've largely been dickheads. But I've yet to see such pernicious behaviour as Handelsblatt is still at. Their story is still up, 16 hours on. Their journalists' tweets are all still up. People are still reading this dangerous bullshit and spreading it around. It won't help grow any roses.
Did you not see the Sunday People this week? They falsely claimed the UK government was knocking off grannines in care homes left, right and centre with its 12 week vaccination approach to Pfizer, because some people who had been vaccinated had died...not necessarily of covid, they had died, and given the roll out most will have been vaccinated less than 3 weeks ago and not with Pfizer.
Utterly dickish and irresponsible of them, but I doubt it'll lead anyone to refuse a vaccine.
I presume PM-elect Piers Moron thinks this problem with vaccinations in the EU is all Hancock's fault...
ManCock has been a walking crying disaster. He has nothing to do with the EU procurement of jabs, the people involved in doing so and whether or not they are also walking crying disasters.
Its not either / or. It can be both / neither because they are not connected. Can you grasp that?
BREXIT UPDATE Due to long term idiot activity concluding at No 10, we can no longer send any plants to Northern Ireland or the EU. As compensation for naked gardens you can have Sovereignty!
Ok, best one so far - (paraphrasing for ease) the EU's failure to get enough timely vaccine supply is the UK's fault because the EU needed to prove it could still do free market Anglo Saxon capitalism after brexit and without the UK so instead of taking a European approach of production subsidies the commission took a UK style free market approach.
From a European colleague of mine on slack in our #coronachat channel, I don't think he's being serious though.
How many UK journalists have published really dangerous bullshit that endangers countless lives?
I thought that was a recurring squawk on here? Folk demanding enquiries into their role in the pandemic and everything.
They've largely been dickheads. But I've yet to see such pernicious behaviour as Handelsblatt is still at. Their story is still up, 16 hours on. Their journalists' tweets are all still up. People are still reading this dangerous bullshit and spreading it around. It won't help grow any roses.
Did you not see the Sunday People this week? They falsely claimed the UK government was knocking off grannines in care homes left, right and centre with its 12 week vaccination approach to Pfizer, because some people who had been vaccinated had died...not necessarily of covid, they had died, and given the roll out most will have been vaccinated less than 3 weeks ago and not with Pfizer.
Utterly dickish and irresponsible of them, but I doubt it'll lead anyone to refuse a vaccine.
There has been widely reported in some care homes that there is a serious issue with especially staff refusing the vaccine due to all sorts of fake scare stories spread via social media and WhatsApp..The last thing we need is more misinformation.
Isn't it remarkable that the SNP are getting no flak over the fact that they criticised Matt Hancock back in July 2020 for not signing up to the EU-wide vaccine procurement scheme?
Scots seem to have very short memories...
The SNP’s Shadow Brexit Secretary Dr Philippa Whitford MP said: “At a time when the UK should be accelerating efforts to work with our EU partners towards finding a vaccine, it is concerning that the UK government has instead rejected the opportunity to take part in yet another EU-wide programme.
“The UK government’s short-sighted and increasingly isolationist approach does nothing but hinder the ability to tackle the virus effectively.
Without wanting to keep going back to Scotland, the mandate issue is easy to solve. In 2019 the Tories ran on a clear manifesto pledge that a vote for a Tory government is a vote to Get Brexit Done. So the same would be true for an SNP manifesto that a vote for an SNP government is a vote for Sindyref2: The Smell of Salmond Fear.
If - and I'm certain they will - the SNP have the need for a new referendum front and centre of their manifesto, and form the government after the election, the mandate is clear. If Unionists want to pretend there is no mandate and boycott the referendum that is no different to the millions of people who attack governments and politicians but do not vote.
It isn't because without Westminster agreeing the referendum is legal and agreeing to implement its result it is nothing more than a glorified equivalent of Express polls for Nationalist voters if Unionists boycott it, as they would
Of course its more, it would be a legally-held, legally-authorise referendum.
The EU didn't agree to the 2016 UK advisory referendum on EU membership, it was held by the national government. Holyrood is Scotland's national government. Same principle applies exactly.
If Remainers had boycotted the EU referendum then it would still have been won by leavers.
The UK Government had the power to leave the EU by an established legal mechanism that allowed member states to leave. The Scottish Government does not have that power, or they would have done so (referendum or no referendum) a long time ago. There is nothing to stop the SNP holding an independence referendum every year if they feel that it is a good use of public money, but there is also nothing obliging the UK Government to recognise the outcome of such referenda.
How many UK journalists have published really dangerous bullshit that endangers countless lives?
Lots, actually. All the Covid deniers and anti-lockdown folk for a start. Allison Pearson in the Telegraph, Hitchens in the Mail, Toby Young (maybe not a journalist?) Julia H-B on Talk Radio. Sure there are plenty more publishing dangerous bullshit.
Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.
And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).
There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.
Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.
We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?
Sorry, sometimes this work stuff gets in the way. I have thought about that a good deal. I have never not voted in my life and it goes against the grain. I am honestly not sure.
Thanks for an honest answer. I'd assumed it might be complicated!
BREXIT UPDATE Due to long term idiot activity concluding at No 10, we can no longer send any plants to Northern Ireland or the EU. As compensation for naked gardens you can have Sovereignty!
That’s going to be a right pain for Boris Johnson if he can’t go to Northern Ireland due to his own deal.
I don't normally like or respect Peston but this is simple, factual and reads entirely correctly.
You like him when he says things that you like?
No I like him when he reports actual facts rather than what his "sources" say that turns out to be complete and utter codswallop.
Ok. Let's test this.
When was the last time he reported something strongly sourced and truthful that you DIDN'T like?
Test passed: I can't think of anything strongly sourced and truthful that I didn't like, that is my point. What is yours?
When he reports authoritatively that there is going to be no further economic support for people during the pandemic, an hour before the Chancellor hosts a press conference announcing a furlough scheme, that is an example of what I dislike. He makes up nonsense from his "sources" hoping to be "first" with a story rather than reporting actual facts.
My point is that you might be - I suspect are - conflating what you like to hear from Pesto with the quality of what you hear from Pesto. So if he says something you approve of (e.g. this AZ story knocking the EU) you deem it good reporting. If it's something you don't like (e.g. no furlough extension) you deem it dross reporting.
To show this is not the case is quite easy. We simply need to find the last time - or any time - he reported something well sourced and truthful that you did not like. That was hence my question and you answered in the negative. Test FAILED, therefore, not passed, and the initial assertion still stands.
You only like him when he says something you like.
Yes - I must admit my eyebrows raised when I saw it was Peston - maybe he had an epiphany after telephonelinegate?
I think he must have lost a bet or desperately wanted to become an internet meme overnight. How else could he have created the biggest story involving phone lines since Watergate out of literally nothing?
Listening to the mad old dear in Epping you'd think "the will of the people" was something you can just ignore in a democracy. Let us see how the actual politicians - even the Tory ones - deal with such basic concepts as representation and legitimacy. I believe they will say all kinds of things to dismiss and denigrate the idea of a referendum without saying that the views of Scotland can be ignored. Because as the people who actually have to be re-elected in Scotland they know they can't say such stupid things.
How many UK journalists have published really dangerous bullshit that endangers countless lives?
I thought that was a recurring squawk on here? Folk demanding enquiries into their role in the pandemic and everything.
They've largely been dickheads. But I've yet to see such pernicious behaviour as Handelsblatt is still at. Their story is still up, 16 hours on. Their journalists' tweets are all still up. People are still reading this dangerous bullshit and spreading it around. It won't help grow any roses.
Don’t worry about the bogus reporting and conspiracy theories leading to thousands more deaths from a pandemic, just look how many retweets we’re getting today!
How many UK journalists have published really dangerous bullshit that endangers countless lives?
I thought that was a recurring squawk on here? Folk demanding enquiries into their role in the pandemic and everything.
They've largely been dickheads. But I've yet to see such pernicious behaviour as Handelsblatt is still at. Their story is still up, 16 hours on. Their journalists' tweets are all still up. People are still reading this dangerous bullshit and spreading it around. It won't help grow any roses.
Did you not see the Sunday People this week? They falsely claimed the UK government was knocking off grannines in care homes left, right and centre with its 12 week vaccination approach to Pfizer, because some people who had been vaccinated had died...not necessarily of covid, they had died, and given the roll out most will have been vaccinated less than 3 weeks ago and not with Pfizer.
Utterly dickish and irresponsible of them, but I doubt it'll lead anyone to refuse a vaccine.
There has been widely reported in some care homes that there is a serious issue with especially staff refusing the vaccine due to all sorts of fake scare stories.
The staff were refusing the vaccine before this week. I don't think they should be allowed to refuse the vaccine and remain employed. I reckon that the correlation of the ethnic background of care home staff and the ethnic background of vaccine refuseniks has more to do with this issue than anything that's been in the British press.
How many UK journalists have published really dangerous bullshit that endangers countless lives?
Lots, actually. All the Covid deniers and anti-lockdown folk for a start. Allison Pearson in the Telegraph, Hitchens in the Mail, Toby Young (maybe not a journalist?) Julia H-B on Talk Radio. Sure there are plenty more publishing dangerous bullshit.
How many of them have said "multiple government sources tell us that lockdown does fuck all"?
This story is slowly making its way into the public consciousness and lots of my remain voting friends are starting to notice the EU vaccine export ban. One is saying "see we shouldn't have left" the rest think the idea is absolutely horrible and it's turning them against the EU.
There is no EU vaccine export ban. If you are rightly aggrieved by the German misreporting of the efficacy, why is it ok to misrepresent the EU position on vaccine exports?
Antagonising EU-UK relations further on fake news is just as unhelpful, the EU are considering a reporting requirement, even that does not exist and may or may not be implemented - it is very different to a ban.
This story is slowly making its way into the public consciousness and lots of my remain voting friends are starting to notice the EU vaccine export ban. One is saying "see we shouldn't have left" the rest think the idea is absolutely horrible and it's turning them against the EU.
I'm having a strong "fight or flight" reaction to it. I feel personally threatened (even though I was unlikely to receive the Pfizer vaccine).
What's really scaring me is that the default assumption of my wife and daughter is that HMG/AZ have probably done something nefarious and so it's a reasonable response on the EU's part.
I know that Johnson and the Tories have a long track record of bashing the foreigner to cover up for their own misdeeds, so it's natural to be suspicious of them, but it really does look like it's the EU politicians who are following that approach on this occasion.
Sir Kier might be be Labour's Kinnock? The wait for Labour's Blair continues...
TBH, my recollection is that Kinnock made more impact than Starmer is managing, and especially that his Shadow Cabinets were more visible and credible, with quite a few big hitters (Roy Hattersley, John Smith, Denis Healey, Robin Cook, Peter Shore etc). Admittedly that's not all Starmer's fault - he can only work with the MPs he's got - but I just don't think he's cutting the mustard.
Listening to the mad old dear in Epping you'd think "the will of the people" was something you can just ignore in a democracy. Let us see how the actual politicians - even the Tory ones - deal with such basic concepts as representation and legitimacy. I believe they will say all kinds of things to dismiss and denigrate the idea of a referendum without saying that the views of Scotland can be ignored. Because as the people who actually have to be re-elected in Scotland they know they can't say such stupid things.
This story is slowly making its way into the public consciousness and lots of my remain voting friends are starting to notice the EU vaccine export ban. One is saying "see we shouldn't have left" the rest think the idea is absolutely horrible and it's turning them against the EU.
There is no EU vaccine export ban. If you are rightly aggrieved by the German misreporting of the efficacy, why is it ok to misrepresent the EU position on vaccine exports?
Antagonising EU-UK relations further on fake news is just as unhelpful, the EU are considering a reporting requirement, even that does not exist and may or may not be implemented - it is very different to a ban.
It's a comment on the way the story is being reported right now across our media.
This story is slowly making its way into the public consciousness and lots of my remain voting friends are starting to notice the EU vaccine export ban. One is saying "see we shouldn't have left" the rest think the idea is absolutely horrible and it's turning them against the EU.
I didn't know you were a good friend of Scott n Paste...
Question. Is it pasting tweets itself that you dislike - the way they format on a phone perhaps - or the content of the tweets?
Dismissing them as a blanket suggests some irritation about the things the tweets are saying that you would prefer weren't made so public...
Its the posting of 100 tweets that say essentially the same thing on the same story. Plus many are from sources such as total nobodies with a 100 followers, which are invariably dubious in accuracy or from the same cliche of people with their predictable rant. It just clogs up the thread. While he offers none of his own insight, just Bozo is crap, heres yet another tweet saying so.
No issue with a tweet or two on a particular story. That why I come here to find out information.
How many UK journalists have published really dangerous bullshit that endangers countless lives?
Lots, actually. All the Covid deniers and anti-lockdown folk for a start. Allison Pearson in the Telegraph, Hitchens in the Mail, Toby Young (maybe not a journalist?) Julia H-B on Talk Radio. Sure there are plenty more publishing dangerous bullshit.
How many of them have said "multiple government sources tell us that lockdown does fuck all"?
How many UK journalists have published really dangerous bullshit that endangers countless lives?
I thought that was a recurring squawk on here? Folk demanding enquiries into their role in the pandemic and everything.
They've largely been dickheads. But I've yet to see such pernicious behaviour as Handelsblatt is still at. Their story is still up, 16 hours on. Their journalists' tweets are all still up. People are still reading this dangerous bullshit and spreading it around. It won't help grow any roses.
Did you not see the Sunday People this week?
I feel at this point I must thank you for tirelessly reading the gutter press and reporting back, so we don't have to
I presume PM-elect Piers Moron thinks this problem with vaccinations in the EU is all Hancock's fault...
ManCock has been a walking crying disaster. He has nothing to do with the EU procurement of jabs, the people involved in doing so and whether or not they are also walking crying disasters.
Its not either / or. It can be both / neither because they are not connected. Can you grasp that?
Surely, if you are going to use that as an insult, shouldn't it at least be Boycock?
Typical impatient lay person question, but how soon from days release to approval is expected?
Good question. It slightly depends on whether the MHRA have been tracking the trials as they go along, which I expect they have. If so, and if the data is unambiguous, it could be pretty quick - a small number of weeks.
Without wanting to keep going back to Scotland, the mandate issue is easy to solve. In 2019 the Tories ran on a clear manifesto pledge that a vote for a Tory government is a vote to Get Brexit Done. So the same would be true for an SNP manifesto that a vote for an SNP government is a vote for Sindyref2: The Smell of Salmond Fear.
If - and I'm certain they will - the SNP have the need for a new referendum front and centre of their manifesto, and form the government after the election, the mandate is clear. If Unionists want to pretend there is no mandate and boycott the referendum that is no different to the millions of people who attack governments and politicians but do not vote.
It isn't because without Westminster agreeing the referendum is legal and agreeing to implement its result it is nothing more than a glorified equivalent of Express polls for Nationalist voters if Unionists boycott it, as they would
Of course its more, it would be a legally-held, legally-authorise referendum.
The EU didn't agree to the 2016 UK advisory referendum on EU membership, it was held by the national government. Holyrood is Scotland's national government. Same principle applies exactly.
If Remainers had boycotted the EU referendum then it would still have been won by leavers.
It was Westminster that had to agree the EU referendum and Westminster that had to vote to implement the result, which it did not do until 2020, as under our constitution Westminster is sovereign via Crown in Parliament.
The same applies to Scotland, Holyrood is merely a creation of Westminster, technically Westminster could scrap Holyrood tomorrow (even if politically that may not be advisable) and all Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
So when Boris and Westminster refuse to allow a legal indyref2 and refuse to implement the result and after Unionists have boycotted it it will be irrrelevant
That's nice dear.
H/T RochdalePioneers.
It is the stated position of the UK government and the UK PM, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and no legal indyref2 will be allowed by this Tory government.
So what happens at Holyrood in May is irrelevant, the UK government will refuse a legal indyref2, will ignore the result of any unauthorised Scottish referendum and Unionists will boycott it.
So until the 2024 general election and for the rest of this Westminster Parliament Sturgeon can 'scream and scream until I'm sick' but Boris will not care less, will ignore her and get on with his day job
I love the cut and thrust of your arguments. Some might bulldoze their way through the issue by repeating themselves ad nausiam but not you!
Typical impatient lay person question, but how soon from days release to approval is expected?
Good question. It slightly depends on whether the MHRA have been tracking the trials as they go along, which I expect they have. If so, and if the data is unambiguous, it could be pretty quick - a small number of weeks.
Yes, it could be like the Pfizer approval which took just a few weeks. The AZ one took longer because the trial was so messy.
Typical impatient lay person question, but how soon from days release to approval is expected?
Pfizer released data in the week of the U.S election (Nov 2 onwards) if I recall correctly and was approved in the UK at the very start of December with vaccinations beginning December 8. So could be as little as 5 or so weeks.
Just catching up on last night's thread and this morning's. There's clearly a lot of animosity towards the EU, some of it last night rather belligerent.
It seems to me that the time has come to have a referendum on leaving the EU. If we leave, we won't be able to blame Brussels bureaucrats, France or Germany etc. any more, and we can live in harmony with our European friends and neighbours.
Edit - somebody's just told me that we have left the EU. Who'd have thought it?
Hmm. Hard to predict. I dont think people do gratitude but if they are feeling more optimistic generally the general position of national party in power doing badly might be mitigated.
How many UK journalists have published really dangerous bullshit that endangers countless lives?
I thought that was a recurring squawk on here? Folk demanding enquiries into their role in the pandemic and everything.
They've largely been dickheads. But I've yet to see such pernicious behaviour as Handelsblatt is still at. Their story is still up, 16 hours on. Their journalists' tweets are all still up. People are still reading this dangerous bullshit and spreading it around. It won't help grow any roses.
Did you not see the Sunday People this week? They falsely claimed the UK government was knocking off grannines in care homes left, right and centre with its 12 week protocol for Pfizer, because some people who had been vaccinated had died...not necessarily of covid, they had just sadly passed away, and given the roll out most will have been vaccinated less than 3 weeks ago and not with Pfizer. They had no data for any, just scare story of grannies dying, government evil, with none of it based on any facts other than some very old fragile people in care homes have passed away so far this year, who had had a jab.
It was a disgraceful story.
Sounds disgraceful.
But I can also say - and I suspect that I can speak for most of us - that no I did read the Sunday People this week.
Indeed I have never read the Sunday People. I didn't even realise it was still a thing.
Comments
Pressing needs however wouldn't let them start again.
The issue for the EU is that the plants in the EU which are dedicated to their AZN vaccine deliveries are coming up short, in terms of production.
So they were waving ideas around about "regulating" vaccine export from the EU. Including the Pfizer vaccine.
All of the UK Pfizer vaccine is coming from inside the EU.
So this *could* have implications for the Pfizer deliveries to the UK. AZN in the UK would be untouched.
Deaths / million within 28 days etc:
England: 1,453
Scotland: 1,001
Excess deaths / million:
England: 1,443
Scotland: 1,315
Lower, but much closer than you are implying. Most of that difference is probably due to the Kent variant. I'm sure we could find an equivalent subsample of England that has a lower rate than Scotland.
As already stated if were still "IN" I personally expect or want HMG to be harping on about our future EU membership in the middle of a pandemic and if they did I would think they had taken leave of their senses.
Deep down you know what I say is true
The Del Boy Trotter of international trade. Lovely Jubbly!
Scots seem to have very short memories...
When he reports authoritatively that there is going to be no further economic support for people during the pandemic, an hour before the Chancellor hosts a press conference announcing a furlough scheme, that is an example of what I dislike. He makes up nonsense from his "sources" hoping to be "first" with a story rather than reporting actual facts.
I think the main response to any HYUFD comment on the legality of such a poll - or something about the Catalans, or barbed wire, or gunboats - should be "that's nice dear".
The same applies to Scotland, Holyrood is merely a creation of Westminster, technically Westminster could scrap Holyrood tomorrow (even if politically that may not be advisable) and all Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
So when Boris and Westminster refuse to allow a legal indyref2 and refuse to implement the result and after Unionists have boycotted it it will be irrrelevant
Thanks, Tony. Thanks a bunch...
“The UK government’s short-sighted and increasingly isolationist approach does nothing but hinder the ability to tackle the virus effectively.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18576012.critics-hit-matt-hancock-confirms-britain-will-not-join-eu-covid-vaccine-purchase-scheme/
They need a word with their source.
The parties have met me halfway.
H/T RochdalePioneers.
So what happens at Holyrood in May is irrelevant, the UK government will refuse a legal indyref2, will ignore the result of any unauthorised Scottish referendum and Unionists will boycott it.
So until the 2024 general election and for the rest of this Westminster Parliament Sturgeon can 'scream and scream until I'm sick' but Boris will not care less, will ignore her and get on with his day job
To show this is not the case is quite easy. We simply need to find the last time - or any time - he reported something well sourced and truthful that you did not like. That was hence my question and you answered in the negative. Test FAILED, therefore, not passed, and the initial assertion still stands.
You only like him when he says something you like.
From their POV, it has the added benefit of some political posturing, and hopefully today's spat is no more than that.
Dismissing them as a blanket suggests some irritation about the things the tweets are saying that you would prefer weren't made so public...
https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/deaths
It was a disgraceful story.
Its not either / or. It can be both / neither because they are not connected. Can you grasp that?
If it were not the case you would need to find something well sourced and truthful that I did not like. If that existed then it would be as you say. I don't dislike anything well sourced and truthful, I like the truth whatever it may be. If he was reporting something well sourced and truthful but I still didn't like it then I would be hypocritical.
Even if something is "bad news", even if something goes against my politics, if a journalist is reporting it "well sourced and truthful" then I don't dislike the messenger for it. Its the truth then and we need to accept it and move on.
The problem is most of what Peston does is speculation that turns out to be wrong.
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1354042268500578304
So, so much funnier and more mature than Brittas.
https://www.trees-online.co.uk/
BREXIT UPDATE
Due to long term idiot activity concluding at No 10, we can no longer send any plants to Northern Ireland or the EU. As compensation for naked gardens you can have Sovereignty!
From a European colleague of mine on slack in our #coronachat channel, I don't think he's being serious though.
2014: "In five years, England will not have an NHS and in 10 years, if we vote no, neither will we."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-top-surgeon-becomes-3836205
Last time I checked, my NHS is still there.
But I have an eye do at the District Hospital this afternoon, so I can check if it has vanished or been sold off.
https://twitter.com/GandalfsBeanbag/status/1353499434584330242
https://twitter.com/ScotTories/status/1353700309500112896?s=20
The Scottish Liberal Democrats have made clear no legal indyref2 should be allowed at any point over the next Holyrood term.
https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
The favourite to succeed Leonard as Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, has said a legal indyref2 should be opposed until at least 2026
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18880342.scottish-labour--will-oppose-indyref2-2026/
All 3 represent the views of their mainly Unionist voters.
Is that racist? I don't know any more..
Neither are likely to be very helpful to SKS, so I am not sure the mood music will change much over the next 12 months.
SKS is auditioning for the role of Andrew James Little.
Though of course even Kinnock nearly became PM in a hung parliament in 1992 with the LDs.
Labour does not need Blair style landslides a la 1997 or 2001 to win power.
Antagonising EU-UK relations further on fake news is just as unhelpful, the EU are considering a reporting requirement, even that does not exist and may or may not be implemented - it is very different to a ban.
What's really scaring me is that the default assumption of my wife and daughter is that HMG/AZ have probably done something nefarious and so it's a reasonable response on the EU's part.
I know that Johnson and the Tories have a long track record of bashing the foreigner to cover up for their own misdeeds, so it's natural to be suspicious of them, but it really does look like it's the EU politicians who are following that approach on this occasion.
Very good, carry on.
No issue with a tweet or two on a particular story. That why I come here to find out information.
Lots of orders with them so depending on production itll be massive.
It seems to me that the time has come to have a referendum on leaving the EU. If we leave, we won't be able to blame Brussels bureaucrats, France or Germany etc. any more, and we can live in harmony with our European friends and neighbours.
Edit - somebody's just told me that we have left the EU. Who'd have thought it?
Hmm. Hard to predict. I dont think people do gratitude but if they are feeling more optimistic generally the general position of national party in power doing badly might be mitigated.
We're in expectations management phase, clearly.
But I can also say - and I suspect that I can speak for most of us - that no I did read the Sunday People this week.
Indeed I have never read the Sunday People. I didn't even realise it was still a thing.