Slicing England into bits remains wretched and unacceptable. Better no devolution than permanently embedding political dividing lines within England.
Mr. Irish2, nice and high, even in the 2007 floods things were alright. Unfortunately, months of building work next door appears to have diverted some spring water beneath the house, so I was rather more anxious this time.
It was what Labour always wanted to do.
New Labour tried to push through elected regional assemblies but the North East which was first up rejected them led by one Dominic Cummings.
If Labour get in again they will not make the same mistake, they will impose regional assemblies on England without a referendum
No way will they do that. There's no appetite for it.
Mr. kinabalu, most here believe (and/or support) the idea of throwing more powers at Holyrood ahead of a second referendum. And it's hard to see that ratchet stopping.
Scotland has devolved powers regarding income tax levels, transport, health, and education. Will England have the equivalent? Not without a Parliament.
And just what is the problem with devolving those powers and reducing the Commons to Defence, some Treasury, Foreign, and some Home affairs?
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with an English Parliament. I just don't have quite the same objection to regional English devolution.
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
The only remaining thing is proper permanence and proper sovereignty in the same way US states do. As you well know, @HYUFD constantly gloats about Westminster having the power to overrule and abolish the Scottish Parliament if it wants.
However, you know better than me. I'm only in favour of such a thing if it would be meaningful to Scots. If it wouldn't be then back to the drawing board.
It's interesting that (a) so many people are now jumping on the mRNA process, and (b) that there are all increasing number of production under license deals (this follows an earlier CureVac - Bayer one).
Of course, CureVac working is absolutely imperative for the EU, given it is the mRNA vaccine they have bought the most of.
Mr. Irish2, if it makes you feel better, it's started to ease at last.
The river running outside my house has become a little less powerful.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and yet MPs representing Scottish constituencies can vote on English and Welsh taxes, which can then be amended in Scotland by MSPs.
There are micro areas of valid English grievance but the macro - the big picture - is nevertheless that Westminster rules the UK and England dominates Westminster.
If however the Tories win a majority in England in 2024 but there is a hung parliament across the UK and Starmer becomes PM thanks to the support of the SNP and Welsh Labour MPs, as is very possible on some current polls, there will be a surge in English nationalism.
That surge will grow even further if Starmer gives Scotland's Parliament devomax, as he probably would but does not do anything about the West Lothian question
It's interesting that (a) so many people are now jumping on the mRNA process, and (b) that there are all increasing number of production under license deals (this follows an earlier CureVac - Bayer one).
Of course, CureVac working is absolutely imperative for the EU, given it is the mRNA vaccine they have bought the most of.
mRNA....its like Garlic Bread....its the future....
Mr. Leave, suppose a UK PM took a decision the Scottish FM opposed on something significant.
The same question arises. If that is unanswerable then the logical conclusions are to abandon devolution or support the break-up of the UK. Not to say devolution is ok for the Welsh and Scottish but not the English.
But England dominates Westminster.
In 1950, 1964, February 1974, 2010 and 2017 the Tories won a majority in England but not in the UK.
In 1950, 1964 and 1974 England voted Tory but got a Labour government thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs
But England has 533 out of 650 seats. And both major parties are English dominated and focused on winning power in Westminster. Which is situated in London, England.
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
The only remaining thing is proper permanence and proper sovereignty in the same way US states do. As you well know, @HYUFD constantly gloats about Westminster having the power to overrule and abolish the Scottish Parliament if it wants.
However, you know better than me. I'm only in favour of such a thing if it would be meaningful to Scots. If it wouldn't be then back to the drawing board.
Our Constitution and the theory of the supremacy of Parliament puts limits on what can be done but the last Scotland Act specifically provided that the Scottish Parliament could not be abolished without the consent of the Scottish people and I think that there is a broad consensus, @HYUFD notwithstanding, that that is now the case.
Since no one in Scotland, not even me, is pushing for a referendum on whether Holyrood should be continued (I believe in Wales this is rather more of an issue) I think it can be said that the matter is settled in practical terms, if not in constitutional theory.
Mr. Irish2, if it makes you feel better, it's started to ease at last.
The river running outside my house has become a little less powerful.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and yet MPs representing Scottish constituencies can vote on English and Welsh taxes, which can then be amended in Scotland by MSPs.
My first take on your "pissing" commentary, was that you were in some severe internal distress.
Then I realized you just meant it was raining VERY hard. Hope you are ok on (reasonably) dry ground.
Was once in the middle of a flash flood, many years ago in West Virginia. It was an amazing, awesome, terrifying sight. We were in a house on a hilltop so were OK. But neighbors down stream had the ground floor of their house flooded, with zero warning.
Slicing England into bits remains wretched and unacceptable. Better no devolution than permanently embedding political dividing lines within England.
Mr. Irish2, nice and high, even in the 2007 floods things were alright. Unfortunately, months of building work next door appears to have diverted some spring water beneath the house, so I was rather more anxious this time.
I always thought that France's phone area codes provide the best template for English devolution:
One code for the capital, one code for everywhere else.
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
Immigration for a start, which may have some connection to your 'structural problems'.
Always thought it a bit weird that Conservative Unionists think that trumpeting Scotland's supposed economic dependency on England was a good thing, though the current lot's entire strategy seems to be based on them stating that they give Scots everything from the British Army to Prince Edward with nothing contributed by said Scots. Quite content from a strategic pov if that continues.
It's interesting that (a) so many people are now jumping on the mRNA process, and (b) that there are all increasing number of production under license deals (this follows an earlier CureVac - Bayer one).
Of course, CureVac working is absolutely imperative for the EU, given it is the mRNA vaccine they have bought the most of.
mRNA....its like Garlic Bread....its the future....
CureVac is also fridge temperature mRNA, so an advance on Moderna and BioNTech's ultra freezer versions.
My guess is that mRNA vaccines are attractive because they are so easy to retool*, because they are essentially chemical production processes (albeit with enzymes) rather than cell-based production, and because there is little chance of acquired immunity to the delivery vehicle, as they is against adenovirus vaccines.
I may be wrong, but I'd be interested to hear experts' views on that.
Edit* to address changes in the targeted antigen, such as COVID's spike protein
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
The only remaining thing is proper permanence and proper sovereignty in the same way US states do. As you well know, @HYUFD constantly gloats about Westminster having the power to overrule and abolish the Scottish Parliament if it wants.
However, you know better than me. I'm only in favour of such a thing if it would be meaningful to Scots. If it wouldn't be then back to the drawing board.
Our Constitution and the theory of the supremacy of Parliament puts limits on what can be done but the last Scotland Act specifically provided that the Scottish Parliament could not be abolished without the consent of the Scottish people and I think that there is a broad consensus, @HYUFD notwithstanding, that that is now the case.
Since no one in Scotland, not even me, is pushing for a referendum on whether Holyrood should be continued (I believe in Wales this is rather more of an issue) I think it can be said that the matter is settled in practical terms, if not in constitutional theory.
Of course I'm aware of all that. But is it settled in the minds of Scots? Maybe a permanent and irrevocable (because in theory the Scotland Act could be amended by a simple majority of English MPs) ceding of power to Holyrood would be just the kind of real action, rather than simple window dressing, that recognises Scotland's status as a sovereign equal to England?
I don't know. But tinkering like holding the odd of a cabinet meeting in Edinburgh is unlikely to change hearts and minds. I don't know what will.
Mr. Irish2, if it makes you feel better, it's started to ease at last.
The river running outside my house has become a little less powerful.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and yet MPs representing Scottish constituencies can vote on English and Welsh taxes, which can then be amended in Scotland by MSPs.
There are micro areas of valid English grievance but the macro - the big picture - is nevertheless that Westminster rules the UK and England dominates Westminster.
If however the Tories win a majority in England in 2024 but there is a hung parliament across the UK and Starmer becomes PM thanks to the support of the SNP and Welsh Labour MPs, as is very possible on some current polls, there will be a surge in English nationalism.
That surge will grow even further if Starmer gives Scotland's Parliament devomax, as he probably would but does not do anything about the West Lothian question
I won't argue with that. There is a surge in English Nationalism now and I'm sure it could easily go up another gear or two. But one hopes not. I don't hate the idea of a standalone independent England but I dislike the feel-tone of English Nationalism.
Mr. Irish2, if it makes you feel better, it's started to ease at last.
The river running outside my house has become a little less powerful.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and yet MPs representing Scottish constituencies can vote on English and Welsh taxes, which can then be amended in Scotland by MSPs.
There are micro areas of valid English grievance but the macro - the big picture - is nevertheless that Westminster rules the UK and England dominates Westminster.
If however the Tories win a majority in England in 2024 but there is a hung parliament across the UK and Starmer becomes PM thanks to the support of the SNP and Welsh Labour MPs, as is very possible on some current polls, there will be a surge in English nationalism.
That surge will grow even further if Starmer gives Scotland's Parliament devomax, as he probably would but does not do anything about the West Lothian question
I won't argue with that. There is a surge in English Nationalism now and I'm sure it could easily go up another gear or two. But one hopes not.
@HYUFD also assured us that Biden winning would lead to a surge of Georgian Republican sentiment to ensure the Dems didn't hold the Senate. Remember that?
Mr. Irish2, if it makes you feel better, it's started to ease at last.
The river running outside my house has become a little less powerful.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and yet MPs representing Scottish constituencies can vote on English and Welsh taxes, which can then be amended in Scotland by MSPs.
My first take on your "pissing" commentary, was that you were in some severe internal distress.
Then I realized you just meant it was raining VERY hard. Hope you are ok on (reasonably) dry ground.
Was once in the middle of a flash flood, many years ago in West Virginia. It was an amazing, awesome, terrifying sight. We were in a house on a hilltop so were OK. But neighbors down stream had the ground floor of their house flooded, with zero warning.
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
Immigration for a start, which may have some connection to your 'structural problems'.
Always thought it a bit weird that Conservative Unionists think that trumpeting Scotland's supposed economic dependency on England was a good thing, though the current lot's entire strategy seems to be based on them giving Scots everything from the British Army to Prince Edward with nothing contributed by said Scots. Quite content from a strategic pov if that continues.
How does Scotland have control of immigration without a hard border with England? What's to stop anyone we attracted catching the first train to London?
I dunno. It might be possible to give people the right to work in particular parts of the UK only. It might be possible to restrict students to Scottish institutions. If there was evidence that this was in fact holding the Scottish economy back we could look at it I suppose.
Scotland's current dependency on England is not a good thing. Its not healthy for either party. But our government is obsessed with petty differences and colouring the arguments for independence rather than trying to create business opportunities in Scotland that would reduce that dependency. We've just had a Scottish budget. The total lack of vision and ambition was beyond embarrassing. Where are our children's jobs going to come from? Are all the talented one's to be lost to the south? There is so much to do. If we did it successfully independence might even become a viable option.
I see that GSK has signed a deal to produce CureVac and pretty much to own CureVac 2.0 if and when it comes along. I see GSK's vaccine production plants are in Belgium, Germany, US and Hungary. I wonder if given Vaccine Wars if they plan any production capacity in the UK.
It's a bit off of the FT to split the world into UK / EU / US / Other, when "Other" makes up about 2/3 of the whole.
Absolutely. It should read “U.K. and other”. The only distinction that matters and two clear sovereign equals.
Mr. Irish2, if it makes you feel better, it's started to ease at last.
The river running outside my house has become a little less powerful.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and yet MPs representing Scottish constituencies can vote on English and Welsh taxes, which can then be amended in Scotland by MSPs.
There are micro areas of valid English grievance but the macro - the big picture - is nevertheless that Westminster rules the UK and England dominates Westminster.
If however the Tories win a majority in England in 2024 but there is a hung parliament across the UK and Starmer becomes PM thanks to the support of the SNP and Welsh Labour MPs, as is very possible on some current polls, there will be a surge in English nationalism.
That surge will grow even further if Starmer gives Scotland's Parliament devomax, as he probably would but does not do anything about the West Lothian question
I won't argue with that. There is a surge in English Nationalism now and I'm sure it could easily go up another gear or two. But one hopes not.
@HYUFD also assured us that Biden winning would lead to a surge of Georgian Republican sentiment to ensure the Dems didn't hold the Senate. Remember that?
It's interesting that (a) so many people are now jumping on the mRNA process, and (b) that there are all increasing number of production under license deals (this follows an earlier CureVac - Bayer one).
Of course, CureVac working is absolutely imperative for the EU, given it is the mRNA vaccine they have bought the most of.
Wow, reading the linked article, I got the impression that CureVac's deal with the UK government re COVID vaccine 2.0 is in large part due to the speed with which clinical trials and regulatory approval can be gained in the UK. This may be an unintended consequence of the EU's idiocy last week.
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
Immigration for a start, which may have some connection to your 'structural problems'.
Always thought it a bit weird that Conservative Unionists think that trumpeting Scotland's supposed economic dependency on England was a good thing, though the current lot's entire strategy seems to be based on them giving Scots everything from the British Army to Prince Edward with nothing contributed by said Scots. Quite content from a strategic pov if that continues.
How does Scotland have control of immigration without a hard border with England? What's to stop anyone we attracted catching the first train to London?
I dunno. It might be possible to give people the right to work in particular parts of the UK only. It might be possible to restrict students to Scottish institutions. If there was evidence that this was in fact holding the Scottish economy back we could look at it I suppose.
Scotland's current dependency on England is not a good thing. Its not healthy for either party. But our government is obsessed with petty differences and colouring the arguments for independence rather than trying to create business opportunities in Scotland that would reduce that dependency. We've just had a Scottish budget. The total lack of vision and ambition was beyond embarrassing. Where are our children's jobs going to come from? Are all the talented one's to be lost to the south? There is so much to do. If we did it successfully independence might even become a viable option.
At least you said 'our government'..
I believe both Canada and Australia manage devolved immigration policies. They've not been having a recent spasm about 'sovereignty' involving their neighbours and trading partners though.
Mr. Sandpit and Mr. Fishing, I agree entirely (thought I'd already posted that, but apparently not).
Ceding more power to Scotland while England has no corresponding Parliament (a strange and mystical concept that the political and media class seems unable to comprehend let alone actually support) would perhaps open a door, ironically, for an English independence campaign.
Ms. Sarissa, when is the next Holyrood election due?
Mr. kinabalu, most here believe (and/or support) the idea of throwing more powers at Holyrood ahead of a second referendum. And it's hard to see that ratchet stopping.
We will see. With a Sindy2 Ref of 'Status Quo vs Sindy' - what result are you rooting for?
It's interesting that (a) so many people are now jumping on the mRNA process, and (b) that there are all increasing number of production under license deals (this follows an earlier CureVac - Bayer one).
Of course, CureVac working is absolutely imperative for the EU, given it is the mRNA vaccine they have bought the most of.
Wow, reading the linked article, I got the impression that CureVac's deal with the UK government re COVID vaccine 2.0 is in large part due to the speed with which clinical trials and regulatory approval can be gained in the UK. This may be an unintended consequence of the EU's idiocy last week.
I don't think it is just last week. The UK government did a similar deal with the French company Valneva. The CEO said the UK government rolled out the red carpet, the deal provided everything we need to give is the best chance of making it happen. France nor the EU would provide the level of guarantees over funding, trials, etc.
The total for the UK will be higher than it was a week ago.
This coming week might be iffy though with snow forecast for much of the country as Beast from the East Two heads our way from the Russian troll farms. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55952108
That's a bit of a simplistic look becuase the benchmark isn't the other group, the benchmark is how it compares to last time around in the March 2020 lockdown. Doing that exercise with the hospitalisation rate shoes there is definitely some effect of vaccines.
It's interesting that (a) so many people are now jumping on the mRNA process, and (b) that there are all increasing number of production under license deals (this follows an earlier CureVac - Bayer one).
Of course, CureVac working is absolutely imperative for the EU, given it is the mRNA vaccine they have bought the most of.
Wow, reading the linked article, I got the impression that CureVac's deal with the UK government re COVID vaccine 2.0 is in large part due to the speed with which clinical trials and regulatory approval can be gained in the UK. This may be an unintended consequence of the EU's idiocy last week.
I don't think it is just last week. The UK government did a similar deal with the French company Valneva. The CEO said the UK government rolled out the red carpet, the deal provided everything we need to give is the best chance of making it happen. France nor the EU would provide the level of guarantees over funding, trials, etc.
If you consider the existing work to mobilise NHS assets and patient data for medical trials, we might be about to reap some dividends as a 70m person test bed for the latest medicines with a well respected regulator, and strong links to other large jurisdictions.
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
Immigration for a start, which may have some connection to your 'structural problems'.
Always thought it a bit weird that Conservative Unionists think that trumpeting Scotland's supposed economic dependency on England was a good thing, though the current lot's entire strategy seems to be based on them giving Scots everything from the British Army to Prince Edward with nothing contributed by said Scots. Quite content from a strategic pov if that continues.
How does Scotland have control of immigration without a hard border with England? What's to stop anyone we attracted catching the first train to London?
I dunno. It might be possible to give people the right to work in particular parts of the UK only. It might be possible to restrict students to Scottish institutions. If there was evidence that this was in fact holding the Scottish economy back we could look at it I suppose.
Scotland's current dependency on England is not a good thing. Its not healthy for either party. But our government is obsessed with petty differences and colouring the arguments for independence rather than trying to create business opportunities in Scotland that would reduce that dependency. We've just had a Scottish budget. The total lack of vision and ambition was beyond embarrassing. Where are our children's jobs going to come from? Are all the talented one's to be lost to the south? There is so much to do. If we did it successfully independence might even become a viable option.
David, as we see regularly it is England that is dependent on Scotland, unionists are crapping tehmselves to allow a vote as they know they are F***** when Scotland votes Yes. Obfuscation and lies cannot hide the truth otherwise we would have the vote organised by now
In terms of constitutional law, I believe it could be done via the same mechanism as the Parliament Acts so there is precedent. I don't intend to be patronising, I'm just regurgitating some talking points from an essay I did last year.
As I'm sure you're very much aware, prior to the Parliament Act, no Bill became an Act unless it passed through the Lords.
The Parliament Act changed this position so a Bill could become a valid and binding Act of Parliament even if it hadn't passed through the Lords under certain circumstances.
A new Act could equally change the position that a Bill covering certain matters, such as abolition of the Scottish Parliament, could only become a valid and binding Act if it obtained the consent of the Scottish Parliament, or perhaps a referendum.
Equally it could be done by turning the Lords into a senate with a certain and equal number of members from each constituent country.
But it absolutely could be done, legally, it's just that Westminster is unlikely to want to cede some of its power.
As you probably are also aware people tried to challenge the validity of the Hunting Act because it had been passed using the Parliament Act 1949, which they argued was not a valid law because it had not been passed through the Lords, and therefore the Hunting Act was invalid. They failed: Jackson v Attorney General.
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
Immigration for a start, which may have some connection to your 'structural problems'.
Always thought it a bit weird that Conservative Unionists think that trumpeting Scotland's supposed economic dependency on England was a good thing, though the current lot's entire strategy seems to be based on them giving Scots everything from the British Army to Prince Edward with nothing contributed by said Scots. Quite content from a strategic pov if that continues.
How does Scotland have control of immigration without a hard border with England? What's to stop anyone we attracted catching the first train to London?
I dunno. It might be possible to give people the right to work in particular parts of the UK only. It might be possible to restrict students to Scottish institutions. If there was evidence that this was in fact holding the Scottish economy back we could look at it I suppose.
Scotland's current dependency on England is not a good thing. Its not healthy for either party. But our government is obsessed with petty differences and colouring the arguments for independence rather than trying to create business opportunities in Scotland that would reduce that dependency. We've just had a Scottish budget. The total lack of vision and ambition was beyond embarrassing. Where are our children's jobs going to come from? Are all the talented one's to be lost to the south? There is so much to do. If we did it successfully independence might even become a viable option.
David, as we see regularly it is England that is dependent on Scotland, unionists are crapping tehmselves to allow a vote as they know they are F***** when Scotland votes Yes. Obfuscation and lies cannot hide the truth otherwise we would have the vote organised by now
The level of delusion on show here..................
It's interesting that (a) so many people are now jumping on the mRNA process, and (b) that there are all increasing number of production under license deals (this follows an earlier CureVac - Bayer one).
Of course, CureVac working is absolutely imperative for the EU, given it is the mRNA vaccine they have bought the most of.
Wow, reading the linked article, I got the impression that CureVac's deal with the UK government re COVID vaccine 2.0 is in large part due to the speed with which clinical trials and regulatory approval can be gained in the UK. This may be an unintended consequence of the EU's idiocy last week.
I don't think it is just last week. The UK government did a similar deal with the French company Valneva. The CEO said the UK government rolled out the red carpet, the deal provided everything we need to give is the best chance of making it happen. France nor the EU would provide the level of guarantees over funding, trials, etc.
I do wonder how much of a ruckus it would cause if pharma and biotech companies decamped to the UK now that there is pretty decent trade deal. It's definitely something I could see happening if the government is serious about supporting these kinds of industries with decent tax rates and easy access to private and public funding. The US is known for its ease of funding for biotech, it's definitely an area that could be liberalised in the UK now that we're not in the EU.
Lol, peak something or other, just had an email from Lord Ashcroft with a Valentine offer for English sparkling wine! If he hasn't been hacked, what a dick.
The average 80 year old only got their shot in the last 2-3 weeks...so not enough time passed yet. Also, the latest cases will have been infected 1-2 weeks ago, so all current cases are from a time when not many oldies had any protection.
It is noticeable that the break point in Israel is 4-5 weeks post first injection, or 1-2 post the second.
I wouldn't expect to see a vaccination effect for another couple of weeks.
I think given our strategy it would show up in the hospitalisation rate rather than the case data, from my own analysis I think the hospitalisation data is more favourable this time for targeted groups than in the last lockdown when one takes into account the Kent variant.
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
Immigration for a start, which may have some connection to your 'structural problems'.
Always thought it a bit weird that Conservative Unionists think that trumpeting Scotland's supposed economic dependency on England was a good thing, though the current lot's entire strategy seems to be based on them giving Scots everything from the British Army to Prince Edward with nothing contributed by said Scots. Quite content from a strategic pov if that continues.
How does Scotland have control of immigration without a hard border with England? What's to stop anyone we attracted catching the first train to London?
I dunno. It might be possible to give people the right to work in particular parts of the UK only. It might be possible to restrict students to Scottish institutions. If there was evidence that this was in fact holding the Scottish economy back we could look at it I suppose.
Scotland's current dependency on England is not a good thing. Its not healthy for either party. But our government is obsessed with petty differences and colouring the arguments for independence rather than trying to create business opportunities in Scotland that would reduce that dependency. We've just had a Scottish budget. The total lack of vision and ambition was beyond embarrassing. Where are our children's jobs going to come from? Are all the talented one's to be lost to the south? There is so much to do. If we did it successfully independence might even become a viable option.
David, as we see regularly it is England that is dependent on Scotland, unionists are crapping tehmselves to allow a vote as they know they are F***** when Scotland votes Yes. Obfuscation and lies cannot hide the truth otherwise we would have the vote organised by now
Sorry, but to say England is dependent on Scotland is a bit silly. Relocating Trident would be an arse, as would getting BAE to relocate ship building, moving other key industries, and focusing the new space launch industry on other sites; but those are annoyances and not dependencies. If you view it in pure monetary terms (I don’t) then the U.K. should want rid of Scotland. Of course, that’s also true of Middlesbrough, which is why I don’t think like that.
That's a bit of a simplistic look becuase the benchmark isn't the other group, the benchmark is how it compares to last time around in the March 2020 lockdown. Doing that exercise with the hospitalisation rate shoes there is definitely some effect of vaccines.
Also, given that it takes about 14-22 days for significant protection to kick in, at what point were a significant percentage of the over-80s vaccinated?
It's interesting that (a) so many people are now jumping on the mRNA process, and (b) that there are all increasing number of production under license deals (this follows an earlier CureVac - Bayer one).
Of course, CureVac working is absolutely imperative for the EU, given it is the mRNA vaccine they have bought the most of.
Wow, reading the linked article, I got the impression that CureVac's deal with the UK government re COVID vaccine 2.0 is in large part due to the speed with which clinical trials and regulatory approval can be gained in the UK. This may be an unintended consequence of the EU's idiocy last week.
I don't think it is just last week. The UK government did a similar deal with the French company Valneva. The CEO said the UK government rolled out the red carpet, the deal provided everything we need to give is the best chance of making it happen. France nor the EU would provide the level of guarantees over funding, trials, etc.
I do wonder how much of a ruckus it would cause if pharma and biotech companies decamped to the UK now that there is pretty decent trade deal. It's definitely something I could see happening if the government is serious about supporting these kinds of industries with decent tax rates and easy access to private and public funding. The US is known for its ease of funding for biotech, it's definitely an area that could be liberalised in the UK now that we're not in the EU.
If Dishy Rishi had had any sense, he would announce an attractive scheme at the next budget, just making it clear how open for Big Pharma business the UK is.
It's interesting that (a) so many people are now jumping on the mRNA process, and (b) that there are all increasing number of production under license deals (this follows an earlier CureVac - Bayer one).
Of course, CureVac working is absolutely imperative for the EU, given it is the mRNA vaccine they have bought the most of.
Wow, reading the linked article, I got the impression that CureVac's deal with the UK government re COVID vaccine 2.0 is in large part due to the speed with which clinical trials and regulatory approval can be gained in the UK. This may be an unintended consequence of the EU's idiocy last week.
I don't think it is just last week. The UK government did a similar deal with the French company Valneva. The CEO said the UK government rolled out the red carpet, the deal provided everything we need to give is the best chance of making it happen. France nor the EU would provide the level of guarantees over funding, trials, etc.
I do wonder how much of a ruckus it would cause if pharma and biotech companies decamped to the UK now that there is pretty decent trade deal. It's definitely something I could see happening if the government is serious about supporting these kinds of industries with decent tax rates and easy access to private and public funding. The US is known for its ease of funding for biotech, it's definitely an area that could be liberalised in the UK now that we're not in the EU.
Synthetic biology as a whole, not just biologics and vaccines. If we can shake off the visceral dislike of 'GMO' and understand how synthetic biology can be very eco-friendly, I think the UK is in a great position to be in the leading pack with US and China in what will be a bigger tech revolution than IT.
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
Immigration for a start, which may have some connection to your 'structural problems'.
Always thought it a bit weird that Conservative Unionists think that trumpeting Scotland's supposed economic dependency on England was a good thing, though the current lot's entire strategy seems to be based on them giving Scots everything from the British Army to Prince Edward with nothing contributed by said Scots. Quite content from a strategic pov if that continues.
How does Scotland have control of immigration without a hard border with England? What's to stop anyone we attracted catching the first train to London?
I dunno. It might be possible to give people the right to work in particular parts of the UK only. It might be possible to restrict students to Scottish institutions. If there was evidence that this was in fact holding the Scottish economy back we could look at it I suppose.
Scotland's current dependency on England is not a good thing. Its not healthy for either party. But our government is obsessed with petty differences and colouring the arguments for independence rather than trying to create business opportunities in Scotland that would reduce that dependency. We've just had a Scottish budget. The total lack of vision and ambition was beyond embarrassing. Where are our children's jobs going to come from? Are all the talented one's to be lost to the south? There is so much to do. If we did it successfully independence might even become a viable option.
David, as we see regularly it is England that is dependent on Scotland, unionists are crapping tehmselves to allow a vote as they know they are F***** when Scotland votes Yes. Obfuscation and lies cannot hide the truth otherwise we would have the vote organised by now
The level of delusion on show here..................
That's a bit of a simplistic look becuase the benchmark isn't the other group, the benchmark is how it compares to last time around in the March 2020 lockdown. Doing that exercise with the hospitalisation rate shoes there is definitely some effect of vaccines.
Also, given that it takes about 14-22 days for significant protection to kick in, at what point were a significant percentage of the over-80s vaccinated?
We were also vaccinating significant number of non over 80s at the same time. See my numbers below for the latest.
So you won't see differential in the way you might expect. But falls across all groups.
That's a bit of a simplistic look becuase the benchmark isn't the other group, the benchmark is how it compares to last time around in the March 2020 lockdown. Doing that exercise with the hospitalisation rate shoes there is definitely some effect of vaccines.
Also, given that it takes about 14-22 days for significant protection to kick in, at what point were a significant percentage of the over-80s vaccinated?
He does say in another tweet that he hopes it is just too early to see much difference given the lags.
The research referenced is - by the way - complete and utter bollocks.
Edit to add: but it doesn't even claim to say the same thing that is in the tweet either, given it applies absurd levels of compound interest over centuries.
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
Immigration for a start, which may have some connection to your 'structural problems'.
Always thought it a bit weird that Conservative Unionists think that trumpeting Scotland's supposed economic dependency on England was a good thing, though the current lot's entire strategy seems to be based on them giving Scots everything from the British Army to Prince Edward with nothing contributed by said Scots. Quite content from a strategic pov if that continues.
How does Scotland have control of immigration without a hard border with England? What's to stop anyone we attracted catching the first train to London?
I dunno. It might be possible to give people the right to work in particular parts of the UK only. It might be possible to restrict students to Scottish institutions. If there was evidence that this was in fact holding the Scottish economy back we could look at it I suppose.
Scotland's current dependency on England is not a good thing. Its not healthy for either party. But our government is obsessed with petty differences and colouring the arguments for independence rather than trying to create business opportunities in Scotland that would reduce that dependency. We've just had a Scottish budget. The total lack of vision and ambition was beyond embarrassing. Where are our children's jobs going to come from? Are all the talented one's to be lost to the south? There is so much to do. If we did it successfully independence might even become a viable option.
David, as we see regularly it is England that is dependent on Scotland, unionists are crapping tehmselves to allow a vote as they know they are F***** when Scotland votes Yes. Obfuscation and lies cannot hide the truth otherwise we would have the vote organised by now
Sorry, but to say England is dependent on Scotland is a bit silly. Relocating Trident would be an arse, as would getting BAE to relocate ship building, moving other key industries, and focusing the new space launch industry on other sites; but those are annoyances and not dependencies. If you view it in pure monetary terms (I don’t) then the U.K. should want rid of Scotland. Of course, that’s also true of Middlesbrough, which is why I don’t think like that.
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
Immigration for a start, which may have some connection to your 'structural problems'.
Always thought it a bit weird that Conservative Unionists think that trumpeting Scotland's supposed economic dependency on England was a good thing, though the current lot's entire strategy seems to be based on them giving Scots everything from the British Army to Prince Edward with nothing contributed by said Scots. Quite content from a strategic pov if that continues.
How does Scotland have control of immigration without a hard border with England? What's to stop anyone we attracted catching the first train to London?
I dunno. It might be possible to give people the right to work in particular parts of the UK only. It might be possible to restrict students to Scottish institutions. If there was evidence that this was in fact holding the Scottish economy back we could look at it I suppose.
Scotland's current dependency on England is not a good thing. Its not healthy for either party. But our government is obsessed with petty differences and colouring the arguments for independence rather than trying to create business opportunities in Scotland that would reduce that dependency. We've just had a Scottish budget. The total lack of vision and ambition was beyond embarrassing. Where are our children's jobs going to come from? Are all the talented one's to be lost to the south? There is so much to do. If we did it successfully independence might even become a viable option.
At least you said 'our government'..
I believe both Canada and Australia manage devolved immigration policies. They've not been having a recent spasm about 'sovereignty' involving their neighbours and trading partners though.
I think that the key difference with both of those examples is that they are enormous with thousands of miles of empty space. I am not sure that they are good models.
But first we need to create the need. Do we need more beggars from Rumania on the streets of Edinburgh? Not really. Do we need more young Europeans handing out the cappuccinos in coffee shops? Certainly not at the moment. Do we need more computer scientists to work on developing Edinburgh's IT sector? Arguably yes but (a) they are not hard to get clearance on the current system and (b) we have yet to really fire up that IT sector to create the demand.
I would love to see a massive emphasis on IT on the back of Microsoft's investment in Edinburgh University. We need to create hubs, infrastructure, train our youth, think about what is taught in schools, facilitate airport connections, etc etc to make this work.
I would love us to use the new vaccine factory and the biosciences in Dundee to revitalise our pharma sector. We should be asking them what do they need? What is going to get them to invest in Scotland?
And we need to accept that being a successful part of a successful UK will be an important part of the answer.
It's interesting that (a) so many people are now jumping on the mRNA process, and (b) that there are all increasing number of production under license deals (this follows an earlier CureVac - Bayer one).
Of course, CureVac working is absolutely imperative for the EU, given it is the mRNA vaccine they have bought the most of.
Wow, reading the linked article, I got the impression that CureVac's deal with the UK government re COVID vaccine 2.0 is in large part due to the speed with which clinical trials and regulatory approval can be gained in the UK. This may be an unintended consequence of the EU's idiocy last week.
I don't think it is just last week. The UK government did a similar deal with the French company Valneva. The CEO said the UK government rolled out the red carpet, the deal provided everything we need to give is the best chance of making it happen. France nor the EU would provide the level of guarantees over funding, trials, etc.
I do wonder how much of a ruckus it would cause if pharma and biotech companies decamped to the UK now that there is pretty decent trade deal. It's definitely something I could see happening if the government is serious about supporting these kinds of industries with decent tax rates and easy access to private and public funding. The US is known for its ease of funding for biotech, it's definitely an area that could be liberalised in the UK now that we're not in the EU.
If Dishy Rishi had had any sense, he would announce an attractive scheme at the next budget, just making it clear how open for Big Pharma business the UK is.
Yep, start with a general increase in tax breaks for R&D and hi-tech manufacturing facilities, then look at what sector-specific barriers to investment could be easily removed.
That's a bit of a simplistic look becuase the benchmark isn't the other group, the benchmark is how it compares to last time around in the March 2020 lockdown. Doing that exercise with the hospitalisation rate shoes there is definitely some effect of vaccines.
Also, given that it takes about 14-22 days for significant protection to kick in, at what point were a significant percentage of the over-80s vaccinated?
We were also vaccinating significant number of non over 80s at the same time. See my numbers below for the latest.
So you won't see differential in the way you might expect. But falls across all groups.
Thanks. Saw that after I posted. You are absolutely right - need to use the right comparators.
The research referenced is - by the way - complete and utter bollocks.
Edit to add: but it doesn't even claim to say the same thing that is in the tweet either, given it applies absurd levels of compound interest over centuries.
Bit like the Westminster Scottish figures then , even more apt than I thought.
The research referenced is - by the way - complete and utter bollocks.
Edit to add: but it doesn't even claim to say the same thing that is in the tweet either, given it applies absurd levels of compound interest over centuries.
Bit like the Westminster Scottish figures then , even more apt than I thought.
30k still in hospital.... that's still 50% higher than the peak of the first wave....i don't think we are going to see any significant relaxation of the rules for quite a long time yet.
30k still in hospital.... that's still 50% higher than the peak of the first wave....i don't think we are going to see any significant relaxation of the rules for quite a long time yet.
It's interesting that (a) so many people are now jumping on the mRNA process, and (b) that there are all increasing number of production under license deals (this follows an earlier CureVac - Bayer one).
Of course, CureVac working is absolutely imperative for the EU, given it is the mRNA vaccine they have bought the most of.
Wow, reading the linked article, I got the impression that CureVac's deal with the UK government re COVID vaccine 2.0 is in large part due to the speed with which clinical trials and regulatory approval can be gained in the UK. This may be an unintended consequence of the EU's idiocy last week.
I don't think it is just last week. The UK government did a similar deal with the French company Valneva. The CEO said the UK government rolled out the red carpet, the deal provided everything we need to give is the best chance of making it happen. France nor the EU would provide the level of guarantees over funding, trials, etc.
I do wonder how much of a ruckus it would cause if pharma and biotech companies decamped to the UK now that there is pretty decent trade deal. It's definitely something I could see happening if the government is serious about supporting these kinds of industries with decent tax rates and easy access to private and public funding. The US is known for its ease of funding for biotech, it's definitely an area that could be liberalised in the UK now that we're not in the EU.
I can see new production coming to the UK, but I'd be surprised if existing plants were moved: capital is already deployed, equipment is depreciated, systems work, processes are debottlnecked, and there are staff that know them. When you bring a new plant on, it's almost always lower productivity (at first) than existing ones.
The research referenced is - by the way - complete and utter bollocks.
Edit to add: but it doesn't even claim to say the same thing that is in the tweet either, given it applies absurd levels of compound interest over centuries.
I'm always suspicious of logic which goes 'Thing A happened and was bad/wrong; therefore, thing B must also definitely be happening and be bad/wrong, end of'.
But it doesn't really matter whether the figures are right or not - some people don't believe the figures and never will.
30k still in hospital.... that's still 50% higher than the peak of the first wave....i don't think we are going to see any significant relaxation of the rules for quite a long time yet.
I think the confirmation that the locals are going ahead are, I think, a good pointer that government intends to have some pretty hefty relaxation of the rules by then.
I repeat: IndyRef2 is a great opportunity for unionism and reborn Brexit Britain. It's an opportunity to finally draw a line under the Scottish Independence issue, or to move forward as England & Wales (and NI lol). Otherwise it's just going to continue bubbling underneath.
However, the Government and Westminster needs to be prepared to cede permanent power to the Scottish Parliament as part of a new union settlement if that would indeed make a difference. They need to give the Scottish Parliament power to veto certain things Westminster wants to do. I know that's painful for unionists but otherwise DevoMax is a waste of time.
Like what? We already have an exceptionally large number of devolved matters where the Scottish Parliament can do what they like and Westminster has no say. The Health Service, benefits, education, social care, police and justice, capital investment, pretty much all the big spenders of government except defence and foreign aid. The Scottish Parliament has the right to vary some taxes and has done so in rather timid ways. We are already in devomax territory.
The fantasy that Holyrood is under the thumb of Westminster in any material way is just SNP propaganda. It's just not true. The apparent right of Scottish MPs to vote on such matters in England is much more of an issue and a consequence of the unbalanced devolution settlement Blair created.
The financial division of those taxes not devolved is also very favourable to Scotland with Barnett differentials being added to any new increase in spending in England. I think the extent of this favoritism is already at the limits of what is democratically acceptable.
I genuinely struggle to see what is left for yet more devolution. If we had a Scottish government that was interested in using the powers it has rather than trying to create more grievances there would be a real chance of addressing the serious structural problems in our economy in a way that might make the north of England jealous.
Immigration for a start, which may have some connection to your 'structural problems'.
Always thought it a bit weird that Conservative Unionists think that trumpeting Scotland's supposed economic dependency on England was a good thing, though the current lot's entire strategy seems to be based on them giving Scots everything from the British Army to Prince Edward with nothing contributed by said Scots. Quite content from a strategic pov if that continues.
How does Scotland have control of immigration without a hard border with England? What's to stop anyone we attracted catching the first train to London?
I dunno. It might be possible to give people the right to work in particular parts of the UK only. It might be possible to restrict students to Scottish institutions. If there was evidence that this was in fact holding the Scottish economy back we could look at it I suppose.
Scotland's current dependency on England is not a good thing. Its not healthy for either party. But our government is obsessed with petty differences and colouring the arguments for independence rather than trying to create business opportunities in Scotland that would reduce that dependency. We've just had a Scottish budget. The total lack of vision and ambition was beyond embarrassing. Where are our children's jobs going to come from? Are all the talented one's to be lost to the south? There is so much to do. If we did it successfully independence might even become a viable option.
David, as we see regularly it is England that is dependent on Scotland, unionists are crapping tehmselves to allow a vote as they know they are F***** when Scotland votes Yes. Obfuscation and lies cannot hide the truth otherwise we would have the vote organised by now
This is genuinely delusional Malcolm. The level of dependency at present is a fact. Of course 20 years ago when the money was pouring in from the north sea it was the other way around but so what?
What we need to do is address why this dependency has come into existence and what we can do about it. There is no question that the success of London sucks money and talent not just from Scotland but from every other part of the UK. That is the price you pay for having an incredibly successful international city. How do we start to create a viable Scottish economy. I have made some suggestions to @Theuniondivvie but no doubt there are many more possibilities. Pretending that the current deficits do not exist is not one of the solutions.
30k still in hospital.... that's still 50% higher than the peak of the first wave....i don't think we are going to see any significant relaxation of the rules for quite a long time yet.
The other issue is R - which seems to have stabilised at 0.8 or so. Nearly any relaxation would bring it back above 1.
30k still in hospital.... that's still 50% higher than the peak of the first wave....i don't think we are going to see any significant relaxation of the rules for quite a long time yet.
The other issue is R - which seems to have stabilised at 0.8 or so. Nearly any relaxation would bring it back above 1.
It is noticeable that the break point in Israel is 4-5 weeks post first injection, or 1-2 post the second.
I wouldn't expect to see a vaccination effect for another couple of weeks.
I think given our strategy it would show up in the hospitalisation rate rather than the case data, from my own analysis I think the hospitalisation data is more favourable this time for targeted groups than in the last lockdown when one takes into account the Kent variant.
I don't think that we can yet separate a vaccine effect from a post Christmas lockdown effect, though I would expect such an effect to show by the end of the month.
Case numbers in the first wavevwere too poor in terms of test access to be reliable.
Does anyone know if Handforth Parish Council has elections this year? And if, so will Betfair have a market?
Read the rules. Read them and understand them.
My favourite take on the matter was the comment that those protesting a lack of understanding of the standing orders were being irrelevant, since if they were right about the meeting itself being illegitimate the lack of adherence to standing orders would not matter.
It's interesting that (a) so many people are now jumping on the mRNA process, and (b) that there are all increasing number of production under license deals (this follows an earlier CureVac - Bayer one).
Of course, CureVac working is absolutely imperative for the EU, given it is the mRNA vaccine they have bought the most of.
Wow, reading the linked article, I got the impression that CureVac's deal with the UK government re COVID vaccine 2.0 is in large part due to the speed with which clinical trials and regulatory approval can be gained in the UK. This may be an unintended consequence of the EU's idiocy last week.
Clinical trials are surely not the issue here, given that most vaccines are being tested in multiple countries at once. And CureVac only started Phase 3 in mid December, and (like Moderna and Pfizer) it's done a big trial in multiple countries.
On approvals, the EU wasn't that slow to authorise Pfizer (what three weeks after the UK?), the issue has been more with AZ. And while I think they were stupid to delay approval, they are hardly the only ones with questions about it. The US has, after all, still not approved it, and Switzerland just rejected approval.
I think @MaxPB (and @FrancisUrquhart) are absolutely right on this one: the UK - as the challenger on the block - has really rolled out the red carped for vaccine makers: guaranteed orders at good prices, support for setting up plants, etc. The UK has demonstrated that small(er) and nimble beats large and bureaucratic.
Comments
What are the 2 dots under the O.
Is this a diacritical marking?
However, you know better than me. I'm only in favour of such a thing if it would be meaningful to Scots. If it wouldn't be then back to the drawing board.
Of course, CureVac working is absolutely imperative for the EU, given it is the mRNA vaccine they have bought the most of.
That surge will grow even further if Starmer gives Scotland's Parliament devomax, as he probably would but does not do anything about the West Lothian question
Since no one in Scotland, not even me, is pushing for a referendum on whether Holyrood should be continued (I believe in Wales this is rather more of an issue) I think it can be said that the matter is settled in practical terms, if not in constitutional theory.
There is a reason it is a gully.
One code for the capital, one code for everywhere else.
Always thought it a bit weird that Conservative Unionists think that trumpeting Scotland's supposed economic dependency on England was a good thing, though the current lot's entire strategy seems to be based on them stating that they give Scots everything from the British Army to Prince Edward with nothing contributed by said Scots. Quite content from a strategic pov if that continues.
My guess is that mRNA vaccines are attractive because they are so easy to retool*, because they are essentially chemical production processes (albeit with enzymes) rather than cell-based production, and because there is little chance of acquired immunity to the delivery vehicle, as they is against adenovirus vaccines.
I may be wrong, but I'd be interested to hear experts' views on that.
Edit* to address changes in the targeted antigen, such as COVID's spike protein
I don't know. But tinkering like holding the odd of a cabinet meeting in Edinburgh is unlikely to change hearts and minds. I don't know what will.
I dunno. It might be possible to give people the right to work in particular parts of the UK only. It might be possible to restrict students to Scottish institutions. If there was evidence that this was in fact holding the Scottish economy back we could look at it I suppose.
Scotland's current dependency on England is not a good thing. Its not healthy for either party. But our government is obsessed with petty differences and colouring the arguments for independence rather than trying to create business opportunities in Scotland that would reduce that dependency. We've just had a Scottish budget. The total lack of vision and ambition was beyond embarrassing. Where are our children's jobs going to come from? Are all the talented one's to be lost to the south? There is so much to do. If we did it successfully independence might even become a viable option.
EDIT: I do remember now! Cost him £25 in fact.
I believe both Canada and Australia manage devolved immigration policies. They've not been having a recent spasm about 'sovereignty' involving their neighbours and trading partners though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55952108
Richards may be my favourite ever cricketer. (The only competition is one I.T.Botham, and maybe Joel Garner)
Anyway, I must be off. Play nicely, everyone.
In terms of constitutional law, I believe it could be done via the same mechanism as the Parliament Acts so there is precedent. I don't intend to be patronising, I'm just regurgitating some talking points from an essay I did last year.
As I'm sure you're very much aware, prior to the Parliament Act, no Bill became an Act unless it passed through the Lords.
The Parliament Act changed this position so a Bill could become a valid and binding Act of Parliament even if it hadn't passed through the Lords under certain circumstances.
A new Act could equally change the position that a Bill covering certain matters, such as abolition of the Scottish Parliament, could only become a valid and binding Act if it obtained the consent of the Scottish Parliament, or perhaps a referendum.
Equally it could be done by turning the Lords into a senate with a certain and equal number of members from each constituent country.
But it absolutely could be done, legally, it's just that Westminster is unlikely to want to cede some of its power.
As you probably are also aware people tried to challenge the validity of the Hunting Act because it had been passed using the Parliament Act 1949, which they argued was not a valid law because it had not been passed through the Lords, and therefore the Hunting Act was invalid. They failed: Jackson v Attorney General.
I wouldn't expect to see a vaccination effect for another couple of weeks.
Under 70 3,020,989
70-74 977,963
75-79 1,603,023
80+ 2,498,160
Percent of all 70-74 population 35.2%
Percent of all 75-79 population 82.6%
Percent of all 80+ population 88.1%
So expecting a massive differential of cases above and below 80 isn't going to happen
So you won't see differential in the way you might expect. But falls across all groups.
Edit to add: but it doesn't even claim to say the same thing that is in the tweet either, given it applies absurd levels of compound interest over centuries.
But first we need to create the need. Do we need more beggars from Rumania on the streets of Edinburgh? Not really. Do we need more young Europeans handing out the cappuccinos in coffee shops? Certainly not at the moment. Do we need more computer scientists to work on developing Edinburgh's IT sector? Arguably yes but (a) they are not hard to get clearance on the current system and (b) we have yet to really fire up that IT sector to create the demand.
I would love to see a massive emphasis on IT on the back of Microsoft's investment in Edinburgh University. We need to create hubs, infrastructure, train our youth, think about what is taught in schools, facilitate airport connections, etc etc to make this work.
I would love us to use the new vaccine factory and the biosciences in Dundee to revitalise our pharma sector. We should be asking them what do they need? What is going to get them to invest in Scotland?
And we need to accept that being a successful part of a successful UK will be an important part of the answer.
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
From case data
From hospitalisations
Absolutely amazing presence, just walking out onto the field.
In fact more than just check - READ THEM AND UNDERSTAND THEM!
But it doesn't really matter whether the figures are right or not - some people don't believe the figures and never will.
What we need to do is address why this dependency has come into existence and what we can do about it. There is no question that the success of London sucks money and talent not just from Scotland but from every other part of the UK. That is the price you pay for having an incredibly successful international city. How do we start to create a viable Scottish economy. I have made some suggestions to @Theuniondivvie but no doubt there are many more possibilities. Pretending that the current deficits do not exist is not one of the solutions.
https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1358031990596005891
Case numbers in the first wavevwere too poor in terms of test access to be reliable.
On approvals, the EU wasn't that slow to authorise Pfizer (what three weeks after the UK?), the issue has been more with AZ. And while I think they were stupid to delay approval, they are hardly the only ones with questions about it. The US has, after all, still not approved it, and Switzerland just rejected approval.
I think @MaxPB (and @FrancisUrquhart) are absolutely right on this one: the UK - as the challenger on the block - has really rolled out the red carped for vaccine makers: guaranteed orders at good prices, support for setting up plants, etc. The UK has demonstrated that small(er) and nimble beats large and bureaucratic.