It is almost certainly the case that as well as general vaccine scepticism among some minority groups, there is also likely to be issues surrounding things like uncertain immigration status (or even totally acceptable immigration status but that things like Windrush have undermined) means that individuals are very reluctant to engage with any official authority at any level.
I wonder if once we get beyond the true "priority groups" ie. towards the sub 50 age range, there may be an argument in some specific areas for trialling some sort of "anonymous" jabs - where people can just turn up no questions asked. Or is that just not feasible given the need for record keeping and for consent purposes?
Once again, I am forced to look beyond the euphoria of the vaccination figures and look at some of the realities beneath the statistics.
1 million people over 16 in Devon and nearly 400,000 have had first vaccinations so a respectable 40%. In Newham, 275,000 people over 16 - only 43,670 have had a first dose so that's 14%.
There needs to be a significant diversion of resources and logistics into those areas lagging behind to make sure we are all in the same position as restrictions are eased. It will be fine for those who are vaccinated to move more freely but if areas have significant numbers of unvaccinated people still at risk there's a potential problem.
This is not a time to go at the speed of the slowest but get jabs into arms as fast as we can.
What reasons are there for this slower take up in Newham?
Is it age related or concentrations of people unwilling to take the jab or a mixture thereof?
It strikes me as strange that those sections of society that seem to be at more risk of a poor outcome if they caught Covid have a more than average reluctance to get vaccinated.
I'm quite happy to accept that Jews are an ethnic (minority) group. However, there's a bit of rewriting of history going on here today. I don't recall anybody ever referring to Ed Miliband or Michael Howard as party leaders of a minority ethnic background, despite the hints of anti-semitism in some commentary on both of them. Until today, on here.
Well you are wrong, people did mention it certainly of Ed M. Sadly it's also how I discovered by father was a racist based on how he referred to Ed M.
It's also completely immaterial whether people have been consistent as to whether something is a fact. The SLab position is not correct. I don't think there's anything sinister about that in the slightest, but whatever the motivation of people pointing it out that you wish to critique, the point being made is still correct.
Interesting point that imo can be overthought. Jewish - the race not the religion - is a minority ethnic grouping in the UK. That's a fact. But BAME has a black/brown/asian vibe for me, regardless of what the acronym stands for. BAME is not white. So, you ask me if a Jewish person here is a member of an ethnic minority, I'll say yes. But ask me if Ed Miliband is BAME and I'll instinctively say no. It feels wrong to say that.
I think that is a fair point - the definition of BAME doesn't exclude white minority ethnic populations, but that is how it is generally talked about and treated.
But that rather illustrates the point that it is a poor acronym to use, as well as occasionally the difficulties with precise ethnic classification (the example used near me locally is people from generation to generation marking things differently in terms of ethnicity in the census, in respect of a sizable grouping which came over from Morocco). If it is meant to be a catch all for the non-white population, then it needs a different term.
Because there is a conflict here between recognising genuine ongoing issues with regards race, and an over focus on ethnicity on all issues at all times.
Well for me we do have that word for not white - it's Bame. No need for another. It started out as an acronym but is now a word. There are lots of acronyms that become words such that what the letters stand for - or originally stood for - is secondary or forgotten. Fiat.
It is quite literally not what the word means.
The word has a literal meaning and is used in statistics etc so understanding what a word actually means is important and not to be flippantly thrown away.
It's close enough to what it means to be what it means - and acronyms do sometimes develop into common currency words with a wider or narrower meaning than they started out as.
Lol. In about six months BAME will be officially discontinued and abhorred as racist and bigoted. Earnest people who are not quite up to speed will still use it and get sacked, the way you can get sacked for saying ‘coloured person’ whereas ‘person of colour’ is AOK. For now.
And so the ludicrous, clattering, soul-crushing bandwagon of Wokeness rolls on
Interesting (as usual) piece from Andrew Tickell (forgive me if it has been flagged up, I've been out on DIY this sunny morning). Seems the complainant anonymity issue ramifies further than many realise.
Agreed that is quite a good piece. S162 was introduced, I am sorry to say, because solicitors were giving people copy statements of victims in sex cases and these were becoming a currency in jails. This made any such transference an offence and changed the practice of solicitors. It is really a stretch to it applying in a situation like this or to evidence that has nothing to do with sex.
No and she is not going to. There are 2 SNP muppets and an ex Green sock-puppet on the committee who will protect her regardless of the evidence. Fraser and Baillie are outgunned. The Lib Dems seem too stupid to contribute anything of note. At worst the head of our Civil Service will take early retirement on a generous package.
I'd like to think that this would cause both Sturgeon and her party real damage. It should. But it won't. People support the SNP because they want independence. Not because they are competent, honest, trustworthy or whatever. Its a very happy situation for a political party to be in.
Only the vague suspicion that Sturgeon is rather too fond of the trappings of office and doesn't want to risk a second referendum has caused murmurings in the ranks. A Sturgeon with a manifesto of a second referendum in the next Parliament will prevail over her domestic critics and all too probably over the opposing parties as well.
Is it even possible that the committee will get talked out until the Election?
Court challenge on something?
Very possible. The way things are going it is quite likely that Crown Office will demand changes to the report and who knows how long that might take?
A bit like the report on the desperate state of Scottish education that is on Swinney's desk but will not be published until after the election. These things happen in a one party state.
Amazing that the party of (minority) government in a one party state is allowing an election to take place in just over two months. Notwithstanding the whiny noises emanating from Unionist parties that the election should be postponed due to Covid, I’m sure they’re ready to grasp this opportunity with a raft of exciting new policies, talented pols and a vision for Scotland within the UK.
Most of the posters complaining about a "one-party state" seem to be ignoring the fact that Wales is easily the country in the UK for which that moniker holds true.
Again, it is worth comparing the Salmond affair with the (much more serious in terms of outcome) Sergeant affair. Nothing has ever been published about the murky suicide of Carl Sergeant. Nothing ever will.
In a real one-party state, the same party is always in power. Transition of power happens internally, when the leader of the party changes. All important posts (like the Ombudsman) are chosen from the membership of the party.
That is Wales.
Curiously, very few posters (and certainly no English Labour posters) have been at all worried about the one-party state that Labour has created west of Clawdd Offa.
Yep, and the same applied to the Labour fiefdom of Scotland for decades. This was the icing on the irony cake over the last few days.
It’s richly ironic, but that doesn’t mean we should just ignore it.
Scotland and Wales need proper PR, not the jerry-rigged and gerrymandered systems they have at present.
You seem to have missed the elephant in the room, perhaps you should cast your eye where you live, the biggest nest of crooks on the planet.
Hackney?
Yes, it also needs PR. The council is very well run by Labour, but they could do with more opposition scrutiny
Since you prefer to pontificate on other countries rather than ENGLAND sic UK sic Britain, I will point it out for you.
I’m not 100% persuaded by the case for PR at Westminster.
My annoyance with the Scottish (and Welsh) systems is that they pretend to be PR, but don’t deliver actual proportionality.
They’re fake.
Westminster system is well rigged and I agree on the fake PR systems made to keep Labour in power ( they made a mess of Scottish one ). However I think the Westminster one is far far worse than any of PR versions.
Oh I agree who is to blame. In fact I believe the Lib Dems had a role too.
Another one of those ironies that make you look at the Lib Dems and wonder what crack pipe they are on.
I agree their one chance at getting PR in 2010 and they blew it. So did Blair in 1997 to do so when he had a massive majority. He should have kept his promise to Jenkins.and seen as magnanimous. It would have changed the country to a ore more modern democracy.
PR would have ensured no more Tory majority governments but also would have meant that Corbyn would not have got as close to power in 2017 as he did.
Instead the LDs would hold the balance of power in almost every general election (bar 2015 when UKIP would have been the Kingmakers) and the Coalition of 2010 to 2015 would become the norm, indeed Blair himself would have needed the LDs to form a government in 1997
Hyfud thanks for all your poll information on this site. You seem very fair in all you posts on the subject. Much appreciated.
Anyone care to take a wild guess whether the number of key texts actually removed from university reading lists will be more or less than the number of university events actually cancelled by wokeness?
My crystal ball forecasts a quick swivel from a sotto voce ‘you’re not getting a referendum cos you’d win it’ to a bellow of ‘you’re not getting a referendum cos you’d lose it, what’s the point?’
You need to do rope-a-dope. Run the polls down to 44/55 for No, get a Referendum from Johnson on the grounds of it's low risk and will secure the Union in a blaze of personal glory of Churchillian hue, then storm back during the campaign and nick it 51/49.
No and she is not going to. There are 2 SNP muppets and an ex Green sock-puppet on the committee who will protect her regardless of the evidence. Fraser and Baillie are outgunned. The Lib Dems seem too stupid to contribute anything of note. At worst the head of our Civil Service will take early retirement on a generous package.
I'd like to think that this would cause both Sturgeon and her party real damage. It should. But it won't. People support the SNP because they want independence. Not because they are competent, honest, trustworthy or whatever. Its a very happy situation for a political party to be in.
Only the vague suspicion that Sturgeon is rather too fond of the trappings of office and doesn't want to risk a second referendum has caused murmurings in the ranks. A Sturgeon with a manifesto of a second referendum in the next Parliament will prevail over her domestic critics and all too probably over the opposing parties as well.
Is it even possible that the committee will get talked out until the Election?
Court challenge on something?
Very possible. The way things are going it is quite likely that Crown Office will demand changes to the report and who knows how long that might take?
A bit like the report on the desperate state of Scottish education that is on Swinney's desk but will not be published until after the election. These things happen in a one party state.
Amazing that the party of (minority) government in a one party state is allowing an election to take place in just over two months. Notwithstanding the whiny noises emanating from Unionist parties that the election should be postponed due to Covid, I’m sure they’re ready to grasp this opportunity with a raft of exciting new policies, talented pols and a vision for Scotland within the UK.
Most of the posters complaining about a "one-party state" seem to be ignoring the fact that Wales is easily the country in the UK for which that moniker holds true.
Again, it is worth comparing the Salmond affair with the (much more serious in terms of outcome) Sergeant affair. Nothing has ever been published about the murky suicide of Carl Sergeant. Nothing ever will.
In a real one-party state, the same party is always in power. Transition of power happens internally, when the leader of the party changes. All important posts (like the Ombudsman) are chosen from the membership of the party.
That is Wales.
Curiously, very few posters (and certainly no English Labour posters) have been at all worried about the one-party state that Labour has created west of Clawdd Offa.
Yep, and the same applied to the Labour fiefdom of Scotland for decades. This was the icing on the irony cake over the last few days.
It’s richly ironic, but that doesn’t mean we should just ignore it.
Scotland and Wales need proper PR, not the jerry-rigged and gerrymandered systems they have at present.
You seem to have missed the elephant in the room, perhaps you should cast your eye where you live, the biggest nest of crooks on the planet.
Hackney?
Yes, it also needs PR. The council is very well run by Labour, but they could do with more opposition scrutiny
Since you prefer to pontificate on other countries rather than ENGLAND sic UK sic Britain, I will point it out for you.
I’m not 100% persuaded by the case for PR at Westminster.
My annoyance with the Scottish (and Welsh) systems is that they pretend to be PR, but don’t deliver actual proportionality.
They’re fake.
Westminster system is well rigged and I agree on the fake PR systems made to keep Labour in power ( they made a mess of Scottish one ). However I think the Westminster one is far far worse than any of PR versions.
Oh I agree who is to blame. In fact I believe the Lib Dems had a role too.
Another one of those ironies that make you look at the Lib Dems and wonder what crack pipe they are on.
I agree their one chance at getting PR in 2010 and they blew it. So did Blair in 1997 to do so when he had a massive majority. He should have kept his promise to Jenkins.and seen as magnanimous. It would have changed the country to a ore more modern democracy.
PR would have ensured no more Tory majority governments but also would have meant that Corbyn would not have got as close to power in 2017 as he did.
Instead the LDs would hold the balance of power in almost every general election (bar 2015 when UKIP would have been the Kingmakers) and the Coalition of 2010 to 2015 would become the norm, indeed Blair himself would have needed the LDs to form a government in 1997
Hyfud thanks for all your poll information on this site. You seem very fair in all you posts on the subject. Much appreciated.
Hyufd is indeed a valuable and insightful poster who would surely be one of PB's greatest assets were it not for his truly mind-blowing stubbornness in refusing to admit when he is completely wrong on something.
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
No and she is not going to. There are 2 SNP muppets and an ex Green sock-puppet on the committee who will protect her regardless of the evidence. Fraser and Baillie are outgunned. The Lib Dems seem too stupid to contribute anything of note. At worst the head of our Civil Service will take early retirement on a generous package.
I'd like to think that this would cause both Sturgeon and her party real damage. It should. But it won't. People support the SNP because they want independence. Not because they are competent, honest, trustworthy or whatever. Its a very happy situation for a political party to be in.
Only the vague suspicion that Sturgeon is rather too fond of the trappings of office and doesn't want to risk a second referendum has caused murmurings in the ranks. A Sturgeon with a manifesto of a second referendum in the next Parliament will prevail over her domestic critics and all too probably over the opposing parties as well.
Is it even possible that the committee will get talked out until the Election?
Court challenge on something?
Very possible. The way things are going it is quite likely that Crown Office will demand changes to the report and who knows how long that might take?
A bit like the report on the desperate state of Scottish education that is on Swinney's desk but will not be published until after the election. These things happen in a one party state.
Amazing that the party of (minority) government in a one party state is allowing an election to take place in just over two months. Notwithstanding the whiny noises emanating from Unionist parties that the election should be postponed due to Covid, I’m sure they’re ready to grasp this opportunity with a raft of exciting new policies, talented pols and a vision for Scotland within the UK.
Most of the posters complaining about a "one-party state" seem to be ignoring the fact that Wales is easily the country in the UK for which that moniker holds true.
Again, it is worth comparing the Salmond affair with the (much more serious in terms of outcome) Sergeant affair. Nothing has ever been published about the murky suicide of Carl Sergeant. Nothing ever will.
In a real one-party state, the same party is always in power. Transition of power happens internally, when the leader of the party changes. All important posts (like the Ombudsman) are chosen from the membership of the party.
That is Wales.
Curiously, very few posters (and certainly no English Labour posters) have been at all worried about the one-party state that Labour has created west of Clawdd Offa.
Yep, and the same applied to the Labour fiefdom of Scotland for decades. This was the icing on the irony cake over the last few days.
It’s richly ironic, but that doesn’t mean we should just ignore it.
Scotland and Wales need proper PR, not the jerry-rigged and gerrymandered systems they have at present.
You seem to have missed the elephant in the room, perhaps you should cast your eye where you live, the biggest nest of crooks on the planet.
Hackney?
Yes, it also needs PR. The council is very well run by Labour, but they could do with more opposition scrutiny
Since you prefer to pontificate on other countries rather than ENGLAND sic UK sic Britain, I will point it out for you.
I’m not 100% persuaded by the case for PR at Westminster.
My annoyance with the Scottish (and Welsh) systems is that they pretend to be PR, but don’t deliver actual proportionality.
They’re fake.
Westminster system is well rigged and I agree on the fake PR systems made to keep Labour in power ( they made a mess of Scottish one ). However I think the Westminster one is far far worse than any of PR versions.
Oh I agree who is to blame. In fact I believe the Lib Dems had a role too.
Another one of those ironies that make you look at the Lib Dems and wonder what crack pipe they are on.
I agree their one chance at getting PR in 2010 and they blew it. So did Blair in 1997 to do so when he had a massive majority. He should have kept his promise to Jenkins.and seen as magnanimous. It would have changed the country to a ore more modern democracy.
PR would have ensured no more Tory majority governments but also would have meant that Corbyn would not have got as close to power in 2017 as he did.
Instead the LDs would hold the balance of power in almost every general election (bar 2015 when UKIP would have been the Kingmakers) and the Coalition of 2010 to 2015 would become the norm, indeed Blair himself would have needed the LDs to form a government in 1997
Hyfud thanks for all your poll information on this site. You seem very fair in all you posts on the subject. Much appreciated.
Hyufd is indeed a valuable and insightful poster who would surely be one of PB's greatest assets were it not for his truly mind-blowing stubbornness in refusing to admit when he is completely wrong on something.
There are a few people on here like that. I suspect HYFUD gets singled out because of his politics, not because of his stubbornness.
I find him a very useful poster who puts up with incredible amount of sh1t.
It is almost certainly the case that as well as general vaccine scepticism among some minority groups, there is also likely to be issues surrounding things like uncertain immigration status (or even totally acceptable immigration status but that things like Windrush have undermined) means that individuals are very reluctant to engage with any official authority at any level.
I wonder if once we get beyond the true "priority groups" ie. towards the sub 50 age range, there may be an argument in some specific areas for trialling some sort of "anonymous" jabs - where people can just turn up no questions asked. Or is that just not feasible given the need for record keeping and for consent purposes?
The only problem with that theory is that the lower take-up of the vaccines is seen in a wide range of contexts - including in the NHS itself - where immigration status will not be the issue.
The issue is wide spread anti-vax memes and propaganda. Quite a lot of it is Naomi Wolf grade wibble.
Anyone care to take a wild guess whether the number of key texts actually removed from university reading lists will be more or less than the number of university events actually cancelled by wokeness?
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
As of March 2018, the number of complaints was two, of which one had been previously dealt with under existing procedures. AIUI, All the others were reported subsequent to the 29 March and April 2 2018 meetings.
Hague’s 2008 reference is stretching the timeframe to include the “killer heels” comment of the exaggerated Edinburgh Airport incident.
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
OTOH the new shows on Netflicks look particularly tedious atm so it might break the monotony of our never ending lockdown. And yes, we have no bananas.
Polls don't matter... what matters is the fight between Salmond and the sainted Nicola. Round one only had a few jabs.. whats going to happen after that ?
On Friday, Salmond categorically stated he believed the “malicious plan” against him began in August 2018, at the time the investigation report was handed to the Crown Office, and SNP head office continued afterwards to trawl for damaging material.
I'm quite happy to accept that Jews are an ethnic (minority) group. However, there's a bit of rewriting of history going on here today. I don't recall anybody ever referring to Ed Miliband or Michael Howard as party leaders of a minority ethnic background, despite the hints of anti-semitism in some commentary on both of them. Until today, on here.
Well you are wrong, people did mention it certainly of Ed M. Sadly it's also how I discovered by father was a racist based on how he referred to Ed M.
It's also completely immaterial whether people have been consistent as to whether something is a fact. The SLab position is not correct. I don't think there's anything sinister about that in the slightest, but whatever the motivation of people pointing it out that you wish to critique, the point being made is still correct.
Interesting point that imo can be overthought. Jewish - the race not the religion - is a minority ethnic grouping in the UK. That's a fact. But BAME has a black/brown/asian vibe for me, regardless of what the acronym stands for. BAME is not white. So, you ask me if a Jewish person here is a member of an ethnic minority, I'll say yes. But ask me if Ed Miliband is BAME and I'll instinctively say no. It feels wrong to say that.
I think that is a fair point - the definition of BAME doesn't exclude white minority ethnic populations, but that is how it is generally talked about and treated.
But that rather illustrates the point that it is a poor acronym to use, as well as occasionally the difficulties with precise ethnic classification (the example used near me locally is people from generation to generation marking things differently in terms of ethnicity in the census, in respect of a sizable grouping which came over from Morocco). If it is meant to be a catch all for the non-white population, then it needs a different term.
Because there is a conflict here between recognising genuine ongoing issues with regards race, and an over focus on ethnicity on all issues at all times.
Well for me we do have that word for not white - it's Bame. No need for another. It started out as an acronym but is now a word. There are lots of acronyms that become words such that what the letters stand for - or originally stood for - is secondary or forgotten. Fiat.
It is quite literally not what the word means.
The word has a literal meaning and is used in statistics etc so understanding what a word actually means is important and not to be flippantly thrown away.
It's close enough to what it means to be what it means - and acronyms do sometimes develop into common currency words with a wider or narrower meaning than they started out as.
Lol. In about six months BAME will be officially discontinued and abhorred as racist and bigoted. Earnest people who are not quite up to speed will still use it and get sacked, the way you can get sacked for saying ‘coloured person’ whereas ‘person of colour’ is AOK. For now.
And so the ludicrous, clattering, soul-crushing bandwagon of Wokeness rolls on
Deceitful hyperbole.
Racism - historic and now - is a blight of a thousand times the magnitude and a thousand times the malignancy of the excesses of Wokeness.
I'm afraid that obsessing about Woke has become a tell.
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
The mere hint of it would be enough to make Johnson cave on Indyref2.
His whole life is a perpetual and largely fruitless search for the affection his malignant father withheld. He can't bear any hint of unpopularity and will rapidly abandon any conviction or position as he feels necessary.
Once again, I am forced to look beyond the euphoria of the vaccination figures and look at some of the realities beneath the statistics.
1 million people over 16 in Devon and nearly 400,000 have had first vaccinations so a respectable 40%. In Newham, 275,000 people over 16 - only 43,670 have had a first dose so that's 14%.
There needs to be a significant diversion of resources and logistics into those areas lagging behind to make sure we are all in the same position as restrictions are eased. It will be fine for those who are vaccinated to move more freely but if areas have significant numbers of unvaccinated people still at risk there's a potential problem.
This is not a time to go at the speed of the slowest but get jabs into arms as fast as we can.
What reasons are there for this slower take up in Newham?
Is it age related or concentrations of people unwilling to take the jab or a mixture thereof?
It strikes me as strange that those sections of society that seem to be at more risk of a poor outcome if they caught Covid have a more than average reluctance to get vaccinated.
In comparing Devon and Newham, why over 16 year-olds if, with few exceptions, it is over-60s that should have been jabbed.
ETA actually maybe the answer is less conspiracy than cock-up and someone accidentally typed 16 when they meant the homophonic 60.
TL;DR - around half of Newham's underperformance is directly explained by age. Some of the remainder may also be, but there does seem to be reduced takeup among ethnic minority communities.
In Newham, 24.4% (86,068) of the population are under 18 years, 67.9% (239,838) are aged 18 to 64 years and 7.7% (27,228) are aged 65 years and older.
Across the UK as a whole, an estimated 18.9% of the population were under 16 years old (for some reason I couldn't easily find 18) and 62.9% were aged 16 to 64 years, with 18.2% over 65.
If the UK has vaccinated (first dose) 36%, then about half of those people are over 65, a percentage which is consistent with Newham. However the absolute difference is not fully explained by age, since even if we add 11% to the Newham figure, we get 25%, well short of the 36% nationally.
Some of that gap is likely to be explained by a lower median age (both now we have started 60-64 vaccinations, plus high risk individuals generally) for Newham within the 18-64 band, as evidenced by a lower median age (Newham: 32.3 years, UK, 40.5).
I still don't think it is fully explained, which is consistent with other data (e.g. NHS staff) showing lower ethnic minority takeup, even where everyone is offered a vaccine. It's just not quite as dramatic as suggested.
These areas should still be on track to hit 70%+ takeup, compared to 90%+ (!!) nationally.
I wonder if vaccination rates plummet when a critical mass of anti-vaxxers is achieved.
Its a lot harder to go against the crowd when there's only 1% of you compared with when there's 10% or 20% or more.
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
The election of Sarwar yesterday to the post of branch manager of SLab accompanied by bland statements about fighting for equality and against social injustice was followed by various exasperated responses along the lines of whether a privately educated millionaire son of a millionaire who was himself privately educating his kids was best placed to do this. SLab's pious reply was that Sarwar having experienced racism (undoubtedly true) gave him more than enough insight into fighting for equality and against injustice.
No and she is not going to. There are 2 SNP muppets and an ex Green sock-puppet on the committee who will protect her regardless of the evidence. Fraser and Baillie are outgunned. The Lib Dems seem too stupid to contribute anything of note. At worst the head of our Civil Service will take early retirement on a generous package.
I'd like to think that this would cause both Sturgeon and her party real damage. It should. But it won't. People support the SNP because they want independence. Not because they are competent, honest, trustworthy or whatever. Its a very happy situation for a political party to be in.
Only the vague suspicion that Sturgeon is rather too fond of the trappings of office and doesn't want to risk a second referendum has caused murmurings in the ranks. A Sturgeon with a manifesto of a second referendum in the next Parliament will prevail over her domestic critics and all too probably over the opposing parties as well.
Is it even possible that the committee will get talked out until the Election?
Court challenge on something?
Very possible. The way things are going it is quite likely that Crown Office will demand changes to the report and who knows how long that might take?
A bit like the report on the desperate state of Scottish education that is on Swinney's desk but will not be published until after the election. These things happen in a one party state.
Amazing that the party of (minority) government in a one party state is allowing an election to take place in just over two months. Notwithstanding the whiny noises emanating from Unionist parties that the election should be postponed due to Covid, I’m sure they’re ready to grasp this opportunity with a raft of exciting new policies, talented pols and a vision for Scotland within the UK.
Most of the posters complaining about a "one-party state" seem to be ignoring the fact that Wales is easily the country in the UK for which that moniker holds true.
Again, it is worth comparing the Salmond affair with the (much more serious in terms of outcome) Sergeant affair. Nothing has ever been published about the murky suicide of Carl Sergeant. Nothing ever will.
In a real one-party state, the same party is always in power. Transition of power happens internally, when the leader of the party changes. All important posts (like the Ombudsman) are chosen from the membership of the party.
That is Wales.
Curiously, very few posters (and certainly no English Labour posters) have been at all worried about the one-party state that Labour has created west of Clawdd Offa.
Yep, and the same applied to the Labour fiefdom of Scotland for decades. This was the icing on the irony cake over the last few days.
It’s richly ironic, but that doesn’t mean we should just ignore it.
Scotland and Wales need proper PR, not the jerry-rigged and gerrymandered systems they have at present.
You seem to have missed the elephant in the room, perhaps you should cast your eye where you live, the biggest nest of crooks on the planet.
Hackney?
Yes, it also needs PR. The council is very well run by Labour, but they could do with more opposition scrutiny
Since you prefer to pontificate on other countries rather than ENGLAND sic UK sic Britain, I will point it out for you.
I’m not 100% persuaded by the case for PR at Westminster.
My annoyance with the Scottish (and Welsh) systems is that they pretend to be PR, but don’t deliver actual proportionality.
They’re fake.
Westminster system is well rigged and I agree on the fake PR systems made to keep Labour in power ( they made a mess of Scottish one ). However I think the Westminster one is far far worse than any of PR versions.
Oh I agree who is to blame. In fact I believe the Lib Dems had a role too.
Another one of those ironies that make you look at the Lib Dems and wonder what crack pipe they are on.
I agree their one chance at getting PR in 2010 and they blew it. So did Blair in 1997 to do so when he had a massive majority. He should have kept his promise to Jenkins.and seen as magnanimous. It would have changed the country to a ore more modern democracy.
PR would have ensured no more Tory majority governments but also would have meant that Corbyn would not have got as close to power in 2017 as he did.
Instead the LDs would hold the balance of power in almost every general election (bar 2015 when UKIP would have been the Kingmakers) and the Coalition of 2010 to 2015 would become the norm, indeed Blair himself would have needed the LDs to form a government in 1997
Hyfud thanks for all your poll information on this site. You seem very fair in all you posts on the subject. Much appreciated.
Hyufd is indeed a valuable and insightful poster who would surely be one of PB's greatest assets were it not for his truly mind-blowing stubbornness in refusing to admit when he is completely wrong on something.
There are a few people on here like that. I suspect HYFUD gets singled out because of his politics, not because of his stubbornness.
I find him a very useful poster who puts up with incredible amount of sh1t.
The bar is set exceeding high when it comes to stubborness on PB.
Oh, and I see from the (rather tortuous) discussion of 'BAME' that the leadership of the Labour Party has been carelessly airbrushing Jews from the historical record of British politics. Wasn't this sort of thing meant to have stopped happening by now? Weird. https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1365664500637184005
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
I don't know if you noticed that a week ago someone had pulled up an old thread from I think 2009. There was one post from an excitable individual asking for the smelly Nats to be banned so they could go off an discuss their referendum that they definitely weren't going to get somewhere else.
What we'd give for that level of prescient Scotch expertise now.
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
I don't know if you noticed that a week ago someone had pulled up an old thread from I think 2009. There was one post from an excitable individual asking for the smelly Nats to be banned so they could go off an discuss their referendum that they definitely weren't going to get somewhere else.
What we'd give for that level of prescient Scotch expertise now.
You’re still not getting a referendum. As you know
Ed Miliband been unpersoned in Scotland over 2015?
Is he the first Asian leader of a major UK political party ?
Yes, if you don’t count Johnson (which for all my mischievous trolling, you probably shouldn’t). And I fully agree that is a good thing. And I have no doubt he will be the first of many.
But ‘ethnic minority’ and ‘Asian’ are not quite the same thing. All Asians in this country are members of an ethnic minority, but not all ethnic minorities are Asian.
The annoying thing about this claim he is the first EM leader of a political party is it distracts from the real achievement that you highlight above.
Thanks I said yesterday ethnic minority my mistake . His family have done very well from coming to Scotland a few generations ago. From hearing his acceptance speech, which was good.
Hardly your mistake, it’s Labour that were pushing that line.
If Jews are BAMEs does that mean you can convert to BAMEhood?
It is almost impossible to ‘convert’ to Judaism. It is not like Islam or Christianity. The only effective way to do it is to marry somebody who is Jewish.
That's not true. It is possible but difficult. My cousin's daughter did so to marry her Jewish boyfriend and we all then had a very jolly Irish-Jewish wedding near Harrogate a few years back.
Could someone please explain - briefly - why Salmond and Sturgeon fell out. I thought they were best mates. So why would she be - allegedly - trying to put him in prison?
The former "first daughter" Ivanka Trump was a high-profile convert, of course. She might yet become the first Jewish president of the United States if she stands in 2024.
I think can help explain the depth of Salmond's fury, having listened to the 6hr testimony.
One issue is over harrassment policies.
The former harrassment policy had been introduced by Mr Salmond, via what he regarded as the proper process, consultation etc, back soon after the SNP became the Government (2007 ?). Can't recall all the details so I will not attempt to rehearse it here.
After #Metoo NS very rapidly introduced a modified policy, which brought complaints about Former Ministers in scope ie historic complaints. That new policy was not subject to consultations, done via legislation, Salmond was not consulted etc etc.
Very rapidly he was the subject of a number of historic complaints, up to attempted rape. And these appeared very suddenly.
Subsequently it went into an official ScotGov investigation, which the Civil Court found to have been unlawfully run. Not sure of the reasons given by the Court but this is part of the controversy around withheld evidence, forgotten about meetings etc. Salmond won that case (was it a Judicial Review?) and 500k+ of his costs (=85% which is a punitive level).
After that started but before it reached a verdict, a parallel police Criminal investigation started, which raised the possibility that it would overtake and rub out the Civil Court Action against the other case (to - allegedly - Sturgeon's advantage). There are allegations about the way this police investigation was generated.
The Committee is investigating how the Scottish Gov handled these processes and the investigation, and seems to have been set up strangely (one afternoon a week, no Counsel), and evidence that seems relevant has been scoped out procedurally so they cannot consider it etc.
So it is all murky.
Without reaching any judgement, I think that Salmond faced up to years in prison would probably explain his determination / resolution. He feels he has been mugged via procedural politics with the possibility of his life being destroyed.
As for Sturgeon, various reasons have been suggested above. I have no comment in this post.
Matt, it is interesting to note that this new procedure was generated at exactly the same time as the furore over the Carl Sargent affair and the criticism of the Welsh First Minister’s handling of it.
In an amazing coincidence, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was suddenly removed from having an active role as Deciding Officer who had the final say whether to take action, and her Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans given the role.
Ed Miliband been unpersoned in Scotland over 2015?
Is he the first Asian leader of a major UK political party ?
Yes, if you don’t count Johnson (which for all my mischievous trolling, you probably shouldn’t). And I fully agree that is a good thing. And I have no doubt he will be the first of many.
But ‘ethnic minority’ and ‘Asian’ are not quite the same thing. All Asians in this country are members of an ethnic minority, but not all ethnic minorities are Asian.
The annoying thing about this claim he is the first EM leader of a political party is it distracts from the real achievement that you highlight above.
Thanks I said yesterday ethnic minority my mistake . His family have done very well from coming to Scotland a few generations ago. From hearing his acceptance speech, which was good.
Hardly your mistake, it’s Labour that were pushing that line.
If Jews are BAMEs does that mean you can convert to BAMEhood?
It is almost impossible to ‘convert’ to Judaism. It is not like Islam or Christianity. The only effective way to do it is to marry somebody who is Jewish.
That's not true. It is possible but difficult. My cousin's daughter did so to marry her Jewish boyfriend and we all then had a very jolly Irish-Jewish wedding near Harrogate a few years back.
Could someone please explain - briefly - why Salmond and Sturgeon fell out. I thought they were best mates. So why would she be - allegedly - trying to put him in prison?
The former "first daughter" Ivanka Trump was a high-profile convert, of course. She might yet become the first Jewish president of the United States if she stands in 2024.
I think can help explain the depth of Salmond's fury, having listened to the 6hr testimony.
One issue is over harrassment policies.
The former harrassment policy had been introduced by Mr Salmond, via what he regarded as the proper process, consultation etc, back soon after the SNP became the Government (2007 ?). Can't recall all the details so I will not attempt to rehearse it here.
After #Metoo NS very rapidly introduced a modified policy, which brought complaints about Former Ministers in scope ie historic complaints. That new policy was not subject to consultations, done via legislation, Salmond was not consulted etc etc.
Very rapidly he was the subject of a number of historic complaints, up to attempted rape. And these appeared very suddenly.
Subsequently it went into an official ScotGov investigation, which the Civil Court found to have been unlawfully run. Not sure of the reasons given by the Court but this is part of the controversy around withheld evidence, forgotten about meetings etc. Salmond won that case (was it a Judicial Review?) and 500k+ of his costs (=85% which is a punitive level).
After that started but before it reached a verdict, a parallel police Criminal investigation started, which raised the possibility that it would overtake and rub out the Civil Court Action against the other case (to - allegedly - Sturgeon's advantage). There are allegations about the way this police investigation was generated.
The Committee is investigating how the Scottish Gov handled these processes and the investigation, and seems to have been set up strangely (one afternoon a week, no Counsel), and evidence that seems relevant has been scoped out procedurally so they cannot consider it etc.
So it is all murky.
Without reaching any judgement, I think that Salmond faced up to years in prison would probably explain his determination / resolution. He feels he has been mugged via procedural politics with the possibility of his life being destroyed.
As for Sturgeon, various reasons have been suggested above. I have no comment in this post.
Only one bit wrong Matt, the complaints were manufactured , that is the evidence they are hiding , if the names came out it would be obvious. They even said as much in their whatsapp meetings whilst planning the stories supposedly but that too is being hidden. Amazing a government minister heading the Crown office can stop parliament seeing the evidence. Banana republic stuff.
To be fair to Salmond, had my previous friend looked to allegedly develop a situation that would ultimately see me imprisoned, then my political ideology would probably take a back seat.
I’ve no idea what the truth of the matter is, but the quality of Salmonds arguments on Friday were impressive
Especially if you had looked at previous ones , all civil servants and Murrel had to write back and say they had inadvertently told whoppers by mistake / forgetfulness to the inquiry after documentary evidence appeared and they now remembered that indeed the things had happened. Murrel kept looking to his left and Baillie eventually asked if he had someone in the room with him , he asked if she was suggesting conspiracy and that only thing there was a magpie, in the garden one presumes even though he was facing away from the windows.
The magpie thing was just a piss take. A more robust Parliament would have had him for contempt.
I'm quite happy to accept that Jews are an ethnic (minority) group. However, there's a bit of rewriting of history going on here today. I don't recall anybody ever referring to Ed Miliband or Michael Howard as party leaders of a minority ethnic background, despite the hints of anti-semitism in some commentary on both of them. Until today, on here.
Well you are wrong, people did mention it certainly of Ed M. Sadly it's also how I discovered by father was a racist based on how he referred to Ed M.
It's also completely immaterial whether people have been consistent as to whether something is a fact. The SLab position is not correct. I don't think there's anything sinister about that in the slightest, but whatever the motivation of people pointing it out that you wish to critique, the point being made is still correct.
Interesting point that imo can be overthought. Jewish - the race not the religion - is a minority ethnic grouping in the UK. That's a fact. But BAME has a black/brown/asian vibe for me, regardless of what the acronym stands for. BAME is not white. So, you ask me if a Jewish person here is a member of an ethnic minority, I'll say yes. But ask me if Ed Miliband is BAME and I'll instinctively say no. It feels wrong to say that.
I think that is a fair point - the definition of BAME doesn't exclude white minority ethnic populations, but that is how it is generally talked about and treated.
But that rather illustrates the point that it is a poor acronym to use, as well as occasionally the difficulties with precise ethnic classification (the example used near me locally is people from generation to generation marking things differently in terms of ethnicity in the census, in respect of a sizable grouping which came over from Morocco). If it is meant to be a catch all for the non-white population, then it needs a different term.
Because there is a conflict here between recognising genuine ongoing issues with regards race, and an over focus on ethnicity on all issues at all times.
Well for me we do have that word for not white - it's Bame. No need for another. It started out as an acronym but is now a word. There are lots of acronyms that become words such that what the letters stand for - or originally stood for - is secondary or forgotten. Fiat.
It is quite literally not what the word means.
The word has a literal meaning and is used in statistics etc so understanding what a word actually means is important and not to be flippantly thrown away.
It's close enough to what it means to be what it means - and acronyms do sometimes develop into common currency words with a wider or narrower meaning than they started out as.
It's close enough for you since Jews don't count as real people?
No it is not close enough. Jews are a persecuted ethnic minority. They do count.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
In fact it has No ahead by 1% including don't knows
It is deeply ironic that it is the Salmondistas that are killing Scottish independence.
I believe this public civil war in the SNP, added together with covid, and the costs of covid will make Scots very cautious over independence, certainly anytime soon.
I'm quite happy to accept that Jews are an ethnic (minority) group. However, there's a bit of rewriting of history going on here today. I don't recall anybody ever referring to Ed Miliband or Michael Howard as party leaders of a minority ethnic background, despite the hints of anti-semitism in some commentary on both of them. Until today, on here.
Well you are wrong, people did mention it certainly of Ed M. Sadly it's also how I discovered by father was a racist based on how he referred to Ed M.
It's also completely immaterial whether people have been consistent as to whether something is a fact. The SLab position is not correct. I don't think there's anything sinister about that in the slightest, but whatever the motivation of people pointing it out that you wish to critique, the point being made is still correct.
Interesting point that imo can be overthought. Jewish - the race not the religion - is a minority ethnic grouping in the UK. That's a fact. But BAME has a black/brown/asian vibe for me, regardless of what the acronym stands for. BAME is not white. So, you ask me if a Jewish person here is a member of an ethnic minority, I'll say yes. But ask me if Ed Miliband is BAME and I'll instinctively say no. It feels wrong to say that.
I think that is a fair point - the definition of BAME doesn't exclude white minority ethnic populations, but that is how it is generally talked about and treated.
But that rather illustrates the point that it is a poor acronym to use, as well as occasionally the difficulties with precise ethnic classification (the example used near me locally is people from generation to generation marking things differently in terms of ethnicity in the census, in respect of a sizable grouping which came over from Morocco). If it is meant to be a catch all for the non-white population, then it needs a different term.
Because there is a conflict here between recognising genuine ongoing issues with regards race, and an over focus on ethnicity on all issues at all times.
Well for me we do have that word for not white - it's Bame. No need for another. It started out as an acronym but is now a word. There are lots of acronyms that become words such that what the letters stand for - or originally stood for - is secondary or forgotten. Fiat.
It is quite literally not what the word means.
The word has a literal meaning and is used in statistics etc so understanding what a word actually means is important and not to be flippantly thrown away.
Call someone a BAM in Scotland and you are likely to get decked.
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
I don't know if you noticed that a week ago someone had pulled up an old thread from I think 2009. There was one post from an excitable individual asking for the smelly Nats to be banned so they could go off an discuss their referendum that they definitely weren't going to get somewhere else.
What we'd give for that level of prescient Scotch expertise now.
You’re still not getting a referendum. As you know
I'm quite content that BJ and co carry on with the line beloved of nonentities on here that 'We' (Brexit loving, Tory electing English) are not going to allow 'you' (smelly Jocks) a referendum.
Ed Miliband been unpersoned in Scotland over 2015?
Is he the first Asian leader of a major UK political party ?
Yes, if you don’t count Johnson (which for all my mischievous trolling, you probably shouldn’t). And I fully agree that is a good thing. And I have no doubt he will be the first of many.
But ‘ethnic minority’ and ‘Asian’ are not quite the same thing. All Asians in this country are members of an ethnic minority, but not all ethnic minorities are Asian.
The annoying thing about this claim he is the first EM leader of a political party is it distracts from the real achievement that you highlight above.
Thanks I said yesterday ethnic minority my mistake . His family have done very well from coming to Scotland a few generations ago. From hearing his acceptance speech, which was good.
Hardly your mistake, it’s Labour that were pushing that line.
If Jews are BAMEs does that mean you can convert to BAMEhood?
It is almost impossible to ‘convert’ to Judaism. It is not like Islam or Christianity. The only effective way to do it is to marry somebody who is Jewish.
That's not true. It is possible but difficult. My cousin's daughter did so to marry her Jewish boyfriend and we all then had a very jolly Irish-Jewish wedding near Harrogate a few years back.
Could someone please explain - briefly - why Salmond and Sturgeon fell out. I thought they were best mates. So why would she be - allegedly - trying to put him in prison?
The former "first daughter" Ivanka Trump was a high-profile convert, of course. She might yet become the first Jewish president of the United States if she stands in 2024.
I think can help explain the depth of Salmond's fury, having listened to the 6hr testimony.
One issue is over harrassment policies.
The former harrassment policy had been introduced by Mr Salmond, via what he regarded as the proper process, consultation etc, back soon after the SNP became the Government (2007 ?). Can't recall all the details so I will not attempt to rehearse it here.
After #Metoo NS very rapidly introduced a modified policy, which brought complaints about Former Ministers in scope ie historic complaints. That new policy was not subject to consultations, done via legislation, Salmond was not consulted etc etc.
Very rapidly he was the subject of a number of historic complaints, up to attempted rape. And these appeared very suddenly.
Subsequently it went into an official ScotGov investigation, which the Civil Court found to have been unlawfully run. Not sure of the reasons given by the Court but this is part of the controversy around withheld evidence, forgotten about meetings etc. Salmond won that case (was it a Judicial Review?) and 500k+ of his costs (=85% which is a punitive level).
After that started but before it reached a verdict, a parallel police Criminal investigation started, which raised the possibility that it would overtake and rub out the Civil Court Action against the other case (to - allegedly - Sturgeon's advantage). There are allegations about the way this police investigation was generated.
The Committee is investigating how the Scottish Gov handled these processes and the investigation, and seems to have been set up strangely (one afternoon a week, no Counsel), and evidence that seems relevant has been scoped out procedurally so they cannot consider it etc.
So it is all murky.
Without reaching any judgement, I think that Salmond faced up to years in prison would probably explain his determination / resolution. He feels he has been mugged via procedural politics with the possibility of his life being destroyed.
As for Sturgeon, various reasons have been suggested above. I have no comment in this post.
Matt, it is interesting to note that this new procedure was generated at exactly the same time as the furore over the Carl Sargent affair and the criticism of the Welsh First Minister’s handling of it.
In an amazing coincidence, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was suddenly removed from having an active role as Deciding Officer who had the final say whether to take action, and her Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans given the role.
A more cynical person than me might suggest that these changes were made because it was blindingly obvious from day 1 that Salmond was going to be the inevitable target of a policy that could be applied to ex ministers and Nicola wanted to hand the poisoned chalice to someone else before it was time to drink. But I like to think the best of people.
Interesting (as usual) piece from Andrew Tickell (forgive me if it has been flagged up, I've been out on DIY this sunny morning). Seems the complainant anonymity issue ramifies further than many realise.
Carnyx, the issue is they are using section 162/163 which is meant for completely different thing. It is misuse of a badly worded law which left loopholes that dodgy people could exploit.
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
The mere hint of it would be enough to make Johnson cave on Indyref2.
His whole life is a perpetual and largely fruitless search for the affection his malignant father withheld. He can't bear any hint of unpopularity and will rapidly abandon any conviction or position as he feels necessary.
You’re a bit mad but you write entertainingly and you are rarely stupid. This, however, is arrant nonsense. Boris would be delighted if the SNP exploded and declared UDI. It would kill Indy even as a dream, for 2 generations.
Note also that in the latest polling on this, UDI is supported by just 18% of Scots. So any party just suggesting it would get massacred in an election. Sturgeon, who is also rarely stupid, knows all this which is why she is so allergic to the idea
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
I don't know if you noticed that a week ago someone had pulled up an old thread from I think 2009. There was one post from an excitable individual asking for the smelly Nats to be banned so they could go off an discuss their referendum that they definitely weren't going to get somewhere else.
What we'd give for that level of prescient Scotch expertise now.
You’re still not getting a referendum. As you know
I'm quite content that BJ and co carry on with the line beloved of nonentities on here that 'We' (Brexit loving, Tory electing English) are not going to allow 'you' (smelly Jocks) a referendum.
You have already had one, and the present state of the SNP should be the focus of your anger as they commit hari kari
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
The red and blue stripes is somewhat evocative of Barcelona. Catalunya anyone?
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
The mere hint of it would be enough to make Johnson cave on Indyref2.
His whole life is a perpetual and largely fruitless search for the affection his malignant father withheld. He can't bear any hint of unpopularity and will rapidly abandon any conviction or position as he feels necessary.
Cod psyc. aside, you fail to note two important political issues:
1) BJ is a gambler, politics wise. He would call any UDI 'all in'. It would be absolutely laughed at south of the border. Would be termed 'a pantomine coup' or a 'Tartan takeover' and would be doomed to fail. Any move that way would kill Sindy stone dead for 100 years. 2) In the final analysis, losing Scotland doesn't hurt the Tories in England. It actually makes life easier, election wise.
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I doubt it. What I can predict with 100% confidence is that you and your ilk will continue to be angered loudly and beyond measure by the sensitivities and the lexicon of the anti-racism movement and yet oddly low wattage about racism itself.
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
I don't know if you noticed that a week ago someone had pulled up an old thread from I think 2009. There was one post from an excitable individual asking for the smelly Nats to be banned so they could go off an discuss their referendum that they definitely weren't going to get somewhere else.
What we'd give for that level of prescient Scotch expertise now.
You’re still not getting a referendum. As you know
I'm quite content that BJ and co carry on with the line beloved of nonentities on here that 'We' (Brexit loving, Tory electing English) are not going to allow 'you' (smelly Jocks) a referendum.
Oh god no, Boris should never talk like this. He should be unfailingly polite and couch any refusal in the vaguest terms with lots of respect for Holyrood plus an offer of a Royal Commission on the Future Constitution blah blah blah
I’m just giving you the reality, like a fine Islay malt, best served neat
No and she is not going to. There are 2 SNP muppets and an ex Green sock-puppet on the committee who will protect her regardless of the evidence. Fraser and Baillie are outgunned. The Lib Dems seem too stupid to contribute anything of note. At worst the head of our Civil Service will take early retirement on a generous package.
I'd like to think that this would cause both Sturgeon and her party real damage. It should. But it won't. People support the SNP because they want independence. Not because they are competent, honest, trustworthy or whatever. Its a very happy situation for a political party to be in.
Only the vague suspicion that Sturgeon is rather too fond of the trappings of office and doesn't want to risk a second referendum has caused murmurings in the ranks. A Sturgeon with a manifesto of a second referendum in the next Parliament will prevail over her domestic critics and all too probably over the opposing parties as well.
Is it even possible that the committee will get talked out until the Election?
Court challenge on something?
Very possible. The way things are going it is quite likely that Crown Office will demand changes to the report and who knows how long that might take?
A bit like the report on the desperate state of Scottish education that is on Swinney's desk but will not be published until after the election. These things happen in a one party state.
Amazing that the party of (minority) government in a one party state is allowing an election to take place in just over two months. Notwithstanding the whiny noises emanating from Unionist parties that the election should be postponed due to Covid, I’m sure they’re ready to grasp this opportunity with a raft of exciting new policies, talented pols and a vision for Scotland within the UK.
Most of the posters complaining about a "one-party state" seem to be ignoring the fact that Wales is easily the country in the UK for which that moniker holds true.
Again, it is worth comparing the Salmond affair with the (much more serious in terms of outcome) Sergeant affair. Nothing has ever been published about the murky suicide of Carl Sergeant. Nothing ever will.
In a real one-party state, the same party is always in power. Transition of power happens internally, when the leader of the party changes. All important posts (like the Ombudsman) are chosen from the membership of the party.
That is Wales.
Curiously, very few posters (and certainly no English Labour posters) have been at all worried about the one-party state that Labour has created west of Clawdd Offa.
Yep, and the same applied to the Labour fiefdom of Scotland for decades. This was the icing on the irony cake over the last few days.
It’s richly ironic, but that doesn’t mean we should just ignore it.
Scotland and Wales need proper PR, not the jerry-rigged and gerrymandered systems they have at present.
You seem to have missed the elephant in the room, perhaps you should cast your eye where you live, the biggest nest of crooks on the planet.
Hackney?
Yes, it also needs PR. The council is very well run by Labour, but they could do with more opposition scrutiny
Since you prefer to pontificate on other countries rather than ENGLAND sic UK sic Britain, I will point it out for you.
I’m not 100% persuaded by the case for PR at Westminster.
My annoyance with the Scottish (and Welsh) systems is that they pretend to be PR, but don’t deliver actual proportionality.
They’re fake.
Westminster system is well rigged and I agree on the fake PR systems made to keep Labour in power ( they made a mess of Scottish one ). However I think the Westminster one is far far worse than any of PR versions.
Oh I agree who is to blame. In fact I believe the Lib Dems had a role too.
Another one of those ironies that make you look at the Lib Dems and wonder what crack pipe they are on.
I agree their one chance at getting PR in 2010 and they blew it. So did Blair in 1997 to do so when he had a massive majority. He should have kept his promise to Jenkins.and seen as magnanimous. It would have changed the country to a ore more modern democracy.
PR would have ensured no more Tory majority governments but also would have meant that Corbyn would not have got as close to power in 2017 as he did.
Instead the LDs would hold the balance of power in almost every general election (bar 2015 when UKIP would have been the Kingmakers) and the Coalition of 2010 to 2015 would become the norm, indeed Blair himself would have needed the LDs to form a government in 1997
Hyfud thanks for all your poll information on this site. You seem very fair in all you posts on the subject. Much appreciated.
Hyufd is indeed a valuable and insightful poster who would surely be one of PB's greatest assets were it not for his truly mind-blowing stubbornness in refusing to admit when he is completely wrong on something.
There are a few people on here like that. I suspect HYFUD gets singled out because of his politics, not because of his stubbornness.
I find him a very useful poster who puts up with incredible amount of sh1t.
Unfortunately the ratio of sh1t to real is enormous and so I now just ignore his ravings. He has proven himself swivel eyed over Scotland and posts total sh1t so I avoid him now. He was once a great poster but somewhere along the line lost the plot.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I doubt it. What I can predict with 100% confidence is that you and your ilk will continue to be angered loudly and beyond measure by the sensitivities and the lexicon of the anti-racism movement and yet oddly low wattage about racism itself.
How cute.
The person who excused anti-Semitism for years is now referring to a word he considers to be "anti-racism" ... but deliberately excludes Jews from anti-racism.
Anyone care to take a wild guess whether the number of key texts actually removed from university reading lists will be more or less than the number of university events actually cancelled by wokeness?
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
In fact it has No ahead by 1% including don't knows
It is deeply ironic that it is the Salmondistas that are killing Scottish independence.
I beg to differ , it is the ne'er do wells running the country that are in danger of delaying it. We have enough of Westminster being crooks and comic singers without electing our own lot.
Oh, and I see from the (rather tortuous) discussion of 'BAME' that the leadership of the Labour Party has been carelessly airbrushing Jews from the historical record of British politics. Wasn't this sort of thing meant to have stopped happening by now? Weird. https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1365664500637184005
It's almost as if the anti-semitism preceded Corbyn.
Anyone care to take a wild guess whether the number of key texts actually removed from university reading lists will be more or less than the number of university events actually cancelled by wokeness?
Left wing person working in the higher education sector doesn't think cancel culture is a problem. Who would have thought?
And privileged reactionary windbags used to pontificating in public tend to think cancel culture IS a problem. Who would have thought?
Can you remind me again of the last time someone extolling progressive values needed security and / or police protection when speaking at a university? I'll let you have the US as well as the UK.
No and she is not going to. There are 2 SNP muppets and an ex Green sock-puppet on the committee who will protect her regardless of the evidence. Fraser and Baillie are outgunned. The Lib Dems seem too stupid to contribute anything of note. At worst the head of our Civil Service will take early retirement on a generous package.
I'd like to think that this would cause both Sturgeon and her party real damage. It should. But it won't. People support the SNP because they want independence. Not because they are competent, honest, trustworthy or whatever. Its a very happy situation for a political party to be in.
Only the vague suspicion that Sturgeon is rather too fond of the trappings of office and doesn't want to risk a second referendum has caused murmurings in the ranks. A Sturgeon with a manifesto of a second referendum in the next Parliament will prevail over her domestic critics and all too probably over the opposing parties as well.
Is it even possible that the committee will get talked out until the Election?
Court challenge on something?
Very possible. The way things are going it is quite likely that Crown Office will demand changes to the report and who knows how long that might take?
A bit like the report on the desperate state of Scottish education that is on Swinney's desk but will not be published until after the election. These things happen in a one party state.
Amazing that the party of (minority) government in a one party state is allowing an election to take place in just over two months. Notwithstanding the whiny noises emanating from Unionist parties that the election should be postponed due to Covid, I’m sure they’re ready to grasp this opportunity with a raft of exciting new policies, talented pols and a vision for Scotland within the UK.
Most of the posters complaining about a "one-party state" seem to be ignoring the fact that Wales is easily the country in the UK for which that moniker holds true.
Again, it is worth comparing the Salmond affair with the (much more serious in terms of outcome) Sergeant affair. Nothing has ever been published about the murky suicide of Carl Sergeant. Nothing ever will.
In a real one-party state, the same party is always in power. Transition of power happens internally, when the leader of the party changes. All important posts (like the Ombudsman) are chosen from the membership of the party.
That is Wales.
Curiously, very few posters (and certainly no English Labour posters) have been at all worried about the one-party state that Labour has created west of Clawdd Offa.
Yep, and the same applied to the Labour fiefdom of Scotland for decades. This was the icing on the irony cake over the last few days.
It’s richly ironic, but that doesn’t mean we should just ignore it.
Scotland and Wales need proper PR, not the jerry-rigged and gerrymandered systems they have at present.
You seem to have missed the elephant in the room, perhaps you should cast your eye where you live, the biggest nest of crooks on the planet.
Hackney?
Yes, it also needs PR. The council is very well run by Labour, but they could do with more opposition scrutiny
Since you prefer to pontificate on other countries rather than ENGLAND sic UK sic Britain, I will point it out for you.
I’m not 100% persuaded by the case for PR at Westminster.
My annoyance with the Scottish (and Welsh) systems is that they pretend to be PR, but don’t deliver actual proportionality.
They’re fake.
Westminster system is well rigged and I agree on the fake PR systems made to keep Labour in power ( they made a mess of Scottish one ). However I think the Westminster one is far far worse than any of PR versions.
Oh I agree who is to blame. In fact I believe the Lib Dems had a role too.
Another one of those ironies that make you look at the Lib Dems and wonder what crack pipe they are on.
I agree their one chance at getting PR in 2010 and they blew it. So did Blair in 1997 to do so when he had a massive majority. He should have kept his promise to Jenkins.and seen as magnanimous. It would have changed the country to a ore more modern democracy.
PR would have ensured no more Tory majority governments but also would have meant that Corbyn would not have got as close to power in 2017 as he did.
Instead the LDs would hold the balance of power in almost every general election (bar 2015 when UKIP would have been the Kingmakers) and the Coalition of 2010 to 2015 would become the norm, indeed Blair himself would have needed the LDs to form a government in 1997
Hyfud thanks for all your poll information on this site. You seem very fair in all you posts on the subject. Much appreciated.
Hyufd is indeed a valuable and insightful poster who would surely be one of PB's greatest assets were it not for his truly mind-blowing stubbornness in refusing to admit when he is completely wrong on something.
There are a few people on here like that. I suspect HYFUD gets singled out because of his politics, not because of his stubbornness.
I find him a very useful poster who puts up with incredible amount of sh1t.
Unfortunately the ratio of sh1t to real is enormous and so I now just ignore his ravings. He has proven himself swivel eyed over Scotland and posts total sh1t so I avoid him now. He was once a great poster but somewhere along the line lost the plot.
Yes, the tanks into Scotland bit went, ahem, a bit overboard.
Anyone care to take a wild guess whether the number of key texts actually removed from university reading lists will be more or less than the number of university events actually cancelled by wokeness?
Left wing person working in the higher education sector doesn't think cancel culture is a problem. Who would have thought?
And privileged reactionary windbags used to pontificating in public tend to think cancel culture IS a problem. Who would have thought?
Can you remind me again of the last time someone extolling progressive values needed security and / or police protection when speaking at a university? I'll let you have the US as well as the UK.
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
I don't know if you noticed that a week ago someone had pulled up an old thread from I think 2009. There was one post from an excitable individual asking for the smelly Nats to be banned so they could go off an discuss their referendum that they definitely weren't going to get somewhere else.
What we'd give for that level of prescient Scotch expertise now.
You’re still not getting a referendum. As you know
I'm quite content that BJ and co carry on with the line beloved of nonentities on here that 'We' (Brexit loving, Tory electing English) are not going to allow 'you' (smelly Jocks) a referendum.
Oh god no, Boris should never talk like this. He should be unfailingly polite and couch any refusal in the vaguest terms with lots of respect for Holyrood plus an offer of a Royal Commission on the Future Constitution blah blah blah
I’m just giving you the reality, like a fine Islay malt, best served neat
When ever some twat starts going on about Islay malts, it always brings this to mind.
I'm quite happy to accept that Jews are an ethnic (minority) group. However, there's a bit of rewriting of history going on here today. I don't recall anybody ever referring to Ed Miliband or Michael Howard as party leaders of a minority ethnic background, despite the hints of anti-semitism in some commentary on both of them. Until today, on here.
Well you are wrong, people did mention it certainly of Ed M. Sadly it's also how I discovered by father was a racist based on how he referred to Ed M.
It's also completely immaterial whether people have been consistent as to whether something is a fact. The SLab position is not correct. I don't think there's anything sinister about that in the slightest, but whatever the motivation of people pointing it out that you wish to critique, the point being made is still correct.
Interesting point that imo can be overthought. Jewish - the race not the religion - is a minority ethnic grouping in the UK. That's a fact. But BAME has a black/brown/asian vibe for me, regardless of what the acronym stands for. BAME is not white. So, you ask me if a Jewish person here is a member of an ethnic minority, I'll say yes. But ask me if Ed Miliband is BAME and I'll instinctively say no. It feels wrong to say that.
I think that is a fair point - the definition of BAME doesn't exclude white minority ethnic populations, but that is how it is generally talked about and treated.
But that rather illustrates the point that it is a poor acronym to use, as well as occasionally the difficulties with precise ethnic classification (the example used near me locally is people from generation to generation marking things differently in terms of ethnicity in the census, in respect of a sizable grouping which came over from Morocco). If it is meant to be a catch all for the non-white population, then it needs a different term.
Because there is a conflict here between recognising genuine ongoing issues with regards race, and an over focus on ethnicity on all issues at all times.
Well for me we do have that word for not white - it's Bame. No need for another. It started out as an acronym but is now a word. There are lots of acronyms that become words such that what the letters stand for - or originally stood for - is secondary or forgotten. Fiat.
It is quite literally not what the word means.
The word has a literal meaning and is used in statistics etc so understanding what a word actually means is important and not to be flippantly thrown away.
It's close enough to what it means to be what it means - and acronyms do sometimes develop into common currency words with a wider or narrower meaning than they started out as.
Lol. In about six months BAME will be officially discontinued and abhorred as racist and bigoted. Earnest people who are not quite up to speed will still use it and get sacked, the way you can get sacked for saying ‘coloured person’ whereas ‘person of colour’ is AOK. For now.
And so the ludicrous, clattering, soul-crushing bandwagon of Wokeness rolls on
Deceitful hyperbole.
Racism - historic and now - is a blight of a thousand times the magnitude and a thousand times the malignancy of the excesses of Wokeness.
I'm afraid that obsessing about Woke has become a tell.
It is indeed a tell - a tell of commitment to intellectual freedom, historical literacy, rationality, and common sense. One of the most useful heuristics around today.
Anyone care to take a wild guess whether the number of key texts actually removed from university reading lists will be more or less than the number of university events actually cancelled by wokeness?
Left wing person working in the higher education sector doesn't think cancel culture is a problem. Who would have thought?
And privileged reactionary windbags used to pontificating in public tend to think cancel culture IS a problem. Who would have thought?
Can you remind me again of the last time someone extolling progressive values needed security and / or police protection when speaking at a university? I'll let you have the US as well as the UK.
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I doubt it. What I can predict with 100% confidence is that you and your ilk will continue to be angered loudly and beyond measure by the sensitivities and the lexicon of the anti-racism movement and yet oddly low wattage about racism itself.
How cute.
The person who excused anti-Semitism for years is now referring to a word he considers to be "anti-racism" ... but deliberately excludes Jews from anti-racism.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I doubt it. What I can predict with 100% confidence is that you and your ilk will continue to be angered loudly and beyond measure by the sensitivities and the lexicon of the anti-racism movement and yet oddly low wattage about racism itself.
How cute.
The person who excused anti-Semitism for years is now referring to a word he considers to be "anti-racism" ... but deliberately excludes Jews from anti-racism.
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
I don't know if you noticed that a week ago someone had pulled up an old thread from I think 2009. There was one post from an excitable individual asking for the smelly Nats to be banned so they could go off an discuss their referendum that they definitely weren't going to get somewhere else.
What we'd give for that level of prescient Scotch expertise now.
You’re still not getting a referendum. As you know
I'm quite content that BJ and co carry on with the line beloved of nonentities on here that 'We' (Brexit loving, Tory electing English) are not going to allow 'you' (smelly Jocks) a referendum.
On what basis are you suggesting Scottish people smell? I haven’t seen anyone else do so.
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
The mere hint of it would be enough to make Johnson cave on Indyref2.
His whole life is a perpetual and largely fruitless search for the affection his malignant father withheld. He can't bear any hint of unpopularity and will rapidly abandon any conviction or position as he feels necessary.
Cod psyc. aside, you fail to note two important political issues:
1) BJ is a gambler, politics wise. He would call any UDI 'all in'. It would be absolutely laughed at south of the border. Would be termed 'a pantomine coup' or a 'Tartan takeover' and would be doomed to fail. Any move that way would kill Sindy stone dead for 100 years. 2) In the final analysis, losing Scotland doesn't hurt the Tories in England. It actually makes life easier, election wise.
The implication of possession by England shown by the word "losing" is very telling.
England shorn of one of its last imperial subjects would be diminished and it would be absolute ego death for tories regardless of any electoral boon it may grant. You only have to see how tories on here hatefuck the idea of Scottish Independence when it comes up every 3 to 5 minutes.
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I doubt it. What I can predict with 100% confidence is that you and your ilk will continue to be angered loudly and beyond measure by the sensitivities and the lexicon of the anti-racism movement and yet oddly low wattage about racism itself.
How cute.
The person who excused anti-Semitism for years is now referring to a word he considers to be "anti-racism" ... but deliberately excludes Jews from anti-racism.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Didn’t you vote for Claire Fox?
No. I voted for there to be no MEPs.
Claire Fox disgusts me.
So you voted for her.
Not easy, this trolling internet whataboutery, is it?
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I doubt it. What I can predict with 100% confidence is that you and your ilk will continue to be angered loudly and beyond measure by the sensitivities and the lexicon of the anti-racism movement and yet oddly low wattage about racism itself.
Every single ‘approved term’ for BAMEs (Christ, it really is ugly, it makes me wince just writing it) has been superseded by a ‘more sensitive’ term, in time. I’m old enough to remember ‘Afro-caribbean’. And let’s not forget ‘coloured person’ was itself a politically correct replacement for earlier words.
There is no reason BAME will be immune to this iron law. Especially as it is hideous and patronising.
I’m actually willing to bet on this, if we can frame the wager coherently.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
They have a lot of work to do. The likes of @Theuniondivvie has a very valid point when he claims that the Unionist parties' platform for the last several elections is nothing more than no to independence and no second referendum.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Ed Miliband been unpersoned in Scotland over 2015?
Is he the first Asian leader of a major UK political party ?
Yes, if you don’t count Johnson (which for all my mischievous trolling, you probably shouldn’t). And I fully agree that is a good thing. And I have no doubt he will be the first of many.
But ‘ethnic minority’ and ‘Asian’ are not quite the same thing. All Asians in this country are members of an ethnic minority, but not all ethnic minorities are Asian.
The annoying thing about this claim he is the first EM leader of a political party is it distracts from the real achievement that you highlight above.
Thanks I said yesterday ethnic minority my mistake . His family have done very well from coming to Scotland a few generations ago. From hearing his acceptance speech, which was good.
Hardly your mistake, it’s Labour that were pushing that line.
If Jews are BAMEs does that mean you can convert to BAMEhood?
It is almost impossible to ‘convert’ to Judaism. It is not like Islam or Christianity. The only effective way to do it is to marry somebody who is Jewish.
That's not true. It is possible but difficult. My cousin's daughter did so to marry her Jewish boyfriend and we all then had a very jolly Irish-Jewish wedding near Harrogate a few years back.
Could someone please explain - briefly - why Salmond and Sturgeon fell out. I thought they were best mates. So why would she be - allegedly - trying to put him in prison?
There is a perception in the SNP that Nicola rather enjoys being first Minister and the trappings and salary that come with it and is reluctant to risk that by a second referendum that she thinks she might lose. I think @malcolmg is in that camp.
Salmond was perceived to be one of the stirrers of this and there was an apprehension that if he returned to Holyrood this might form a basis for challenging Nicola's leadership. She has been doing her best to keep him and his supporters (such as Cherry and MacAskill) out of Holyrood so this can't happen.
Plus she signed up big time to the #metoo bandwagon which meant she felt she had to be seen to take the allegations against Salmond very seriously.
Do you think behaviour that even limited to what Salmond accepted had happened, i.e. fondling, kissing and touching subordinates after drinking late at night in their work place, shouldn’t have been taken very seriously?
I wasn’t aware Macaskill had made any attempt to get back into Holyrood.
At last the question on everyone's lips.....well except for Unionist Tories who can't find much wrong with a bit of slap and tickle around Bute House.
No and she is not going to. There are 2 SNP muppets and an ex Green sock-puppet on the committee who will protect her regardless of the evidence. Fraser and Baillie are outgunned. The Lib Dems seem too stupid to contribute anything of note. At worst the head of our Civil Service will take early retirement on a generous package.
I'd like to think that this would cause both Sturgeon and her party real damage. It should. But it won't. People support the SNP because they want independence. Not because they are competent, honest, trustworthy or whatever. Its a very happy situation for a political party to be in.
Only the vague suspicion that Sturgeon is rather too fond of the trappings of office and doesn't want to risk a second referendum has caused murmurings in the ranks. A Sturgeon with a manifesto of a second referendum in the next Parliament will prevail over her domestic critics and all too probably over the opposing parties as well.
Is it even possible that the committee will get talked out until the Election?
Court challenge on something?
Very possible. The way things are going it is quite likely that Crown Office will demand changes to the report and who knows how long that might take?
A bit like the report on the desperate state of Scottish education that is on Swinney's desk but will not be published until after the election. These things happen in a one party state.
Amazing that the party of (minority) government in a one party state is allowing an election to take place in just over two months. Notwithstanding the whiny noises emanating from Unionist parties that the election should be postponed due to Covid, I’m sure they’re ready to grasp this opportunity with a raft of exciting new policies, talented pols and a vision for Scotland within the UK.
Most of the posters complaining about a "one-party state" seem to be ignoring the fact that Wales is easily the country in the UK for which that moniker holds true.
Again, it is worth comparing the Salmond affair with the (much more serious in terms of outcome) Sergeant affair. Nothing has ever been published about the murky suicide of Carl Sergeant. Nothing ever will.
In a real one-party state, the same party is always in power. Transition of power happens internally, when the leader of the party changes. All important posts (like the Ombudsman) are chosen from the membership of the party.
That is Wales.
Curiously, very few posters (and certainly no English Labour posters) have been at all worried about the one-party state that Labour has created west of Clawdd Offa.
Yep, and the same applied to the Labour fiefdom of Scotland for decades. This was the icing on the irony cake over the last few days.
It’s richly ironic, but that doesn’t mean we should just ignore it.
Scotland and Wales need proper PR, not the jerry-rigged and gerrymandered systems they have at present.
You seem to have missed the elephant in the room, perhaps you should cast your eye where you live, the biggest nest of crooks on the planet.
Hackney?
Yes, it also needs PR. The council is very well run by Labour, but they could do with more opposition scrutiny
Since you prefer to pontificate on other countries rather than ENGLAND sic UK sic Britain, I will point it out for you.
I’m not 100% persuaded by the case for PR at Westminster.
My annoyance with the Scottish (and Welsh) systems is that they pretend to be PR, but don’t deliver actual proportionality.
They’re fake.
Westminster system is well rigged and I agree on the fake PR systems made to keep Labour in power ( they made a mess of Scottish one ). However I think the Westminster one is far far worse than any of PR versions.
Oh I agree who is to blame. In fact I believe the Lib Dems had a role too.
Another one of those ironies that make you look at the Lib Dems and wonder what crack pipe they are on.
I agree their one chance at getting PR in 2010 and they blew it. So did Blair in 1997 to do so when he had a massive majority. He should have kept his promise to Jenkins.and seen as magnanimous. It would have changed the country to a ore more modern democracy.
PR would have ensured no more Tory majority governments but also would have meant that Corbyn would not have got as close to power in 2017 as he did.
Instead the LDs would hold the balance of power in almost every general election (bar 2015 when UKIP would have been the Kingmakers) and the Coalition of 2010 to 2015 would become the norm, indeed Blair himself would have needed the LDs to form a government in 1997
I’m surprised by your conclusion that every election would have had the same vote share for the same parties (and no more viable parties) regardless of the voting system used. Could you explain your reasoning? Virtually every serious study concludes that voting system used deeply affects all of those.
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
The mere hint of it would be enough to make Johnson cave on Indyref2.
His whole life is a perpetual and largely fruitless search for the affection his malignant father withheld. He can't bear any hint of unpopularity and will rapidly abandon any conviction or position as he feels necessary.
Cod psyc. aside, you fail to note two important political issues:
1) BJ is a gambler, politics wise. He would call any UDI 'all in'. It would be absolutely laughed at south of the border. Would be termed 'a pantomine coup' or a 'Tartan takeover' and would be doomed to fail. Any move that way would kill Sindy stone dead for 100 years. 2) In the final analysis, losing Scotland doesn't hurt the Tories in England. It actually makes life easier, election wise.
The implication of possession by England shown by the word "losing" is very telling.
England shorn of one of its last imperial subjects would be diminished and it would be absolute ego death for tories regardless of any electoral boon it may grant. You only have to see how tories on here hatefuck the idea of Scottish Independence when it comes up every 3 to 5 minutes.
With no actual problems to fight against, the efforts nationalists have to go to in generating 'grievances' is quite extraordinary. Psychologically it can't be helpful in leading a happy life.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
The SNP were strong in Dundee from the 1970s onwards.
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I doubt it. What I can predict with 100% confidence is that you and your ilk will continue to be angered loudly and beyond measure by the sensitivities and the lexicon of the anti-racism movement and yet oddly low wattage about racism itself.
How cute.
The person who excused anti-Semitism for years is now referring to a word he considers to be "anti-racism" ... but deliberately excludes Jews from anti-racism.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Didn’t you vote for Claire Fox?
No. I voted for there to be no MEPs.
Claire Fox disgusts me.
So you voted for her.
Not easy, this trolling internet whataboutery, is it?
I stand by voting for there to be no MEPs. I stand by saying Claire Fox disgusts me. I stand by saying Claire Fox should NOT be in the Lord's.
I don't try to excuse Fox to justify my vote. I stand by my principles and say Fox does not meet them.
Kinabalu justified anti-Semitism for years, now wants anti-racism to exclude Jews. If you don't see the difference I don't know how to explain it. 🤷🏻♂️
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I doubt it. What I can predict with 100% confidence is that you and your ilk will continue to be angered loudly and beyond measure by the sensitivities and the lexicon of the anti-racism movement and yet oddly low wattage about racism itself.
How cute.
The person who excused anti-Semitism for years is now referring to a word he considers to be "anti-racism" ... but deliberately excludes Jews from anti-racism.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
This reads poorly. It's impossible for a person of limited faculties, no matter how hard they try, to insult, smear, and make a cogent point all in one short post.
Och, they've got the big guns loading up now. Will Nige's plan involve doing his 'the British Empire was great' schtick with a side order of 'but you Jocks were FULLY complicit with any bad stuff that might have accidentally occurred '?
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
They have a lot of work to do. The likes of @Theuniondivvie has a very valid point when he claims that the Unionist parties' platform for the last several elections is nothing more than no to independence and no second referendum.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Yes.
And Sarwar has just a few weeks to raise these sort of points, or he needn’t have bothered.
Keir shows the danger of doing nothing and saying less.
I've noticed in a couple of places the term BAME being phased out in favour of something vague and inoffensive, so maybe it is on the way to being cancelled.
Have to agree with @Gardenwalker, without minimising the reality of racism, which is of course present in our society we do appear so wrapped up in the whole thing as to miss the bigger picture... class, wealth.
I would suggest the experience of a Chinese person working in the City, black kid on a council estate, Asian factory worker in the midlands, Orthodox Jewish dude in North London, Indian doctor/Chancellor of the Exchequer (I could go on) are so diverse and varied as to make the term meaningless...
Yes, there have already been articles in the Guardian complaining about ‘BAME’ being patronising. Which it is
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I doubt it. What I can predict with 100% confidence is that you and your ilk will continue to be angered loudly and beyond measure by the sensitivities and the lexicon of the anti-racism movement and yet oddly low wattage about racism itself.
How cute.
The person who excused anti-Semitism for years is now referring to a word he considers to be "anti-racism" ... but deliberately excludes Jews from anti-racism.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
This reads poorly. It's impossible for a person of limited faculties, no matter how hard they try, to insult, smear, and make a cogent point all in one short post.
Let others be the judge of that, the point stands.
You think Jews don't count and want anti-racism terminology to deliberately excludes Jews as that's close enough.
By your own words and actions you are an anti-Semite. You may appeal next week.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
Incidentally, having followed the links on the "pilots" for Voter ID that have been pursued - i don't see much evidence of them having been carried out in areas where they are quite likely to have a significant negative impact.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
They have a lot of work to do. The likes of @Theuniondivvie has a very valid point when he claims that the Unionist parties' platform for the last several elections is nothing more than no to independence and no second referendum.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Yes, it is a valid point. On the other hand Scotland is perpetually ruled by a rather corrupt party whose overriding obsession is breaking up the Union, with a referendum, while ignoring and neglecting Scotland’s actual problems - so it is understandable why unionist parties react as they do, but from the opposite side
The best thing for Scotland (in terms of realistic expectations) is if the SNP do unexpectedly badly in May, do not get a majority, and have to accept there’s no indyref on the near horizon. THEN they might actually turn their attention to proper governance, with all the many, real powers they already have. And London must be willing to help. We are a union. That’s what unions are for.
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
The mere hint of it would be enough to make Johnson cave on Indyref2.
His whole life is a perpetual and largely fruitless search for the affection his malignant father withheld. He can't bear any hint of unpopularity and will rapidly abandon any conviction or position as he feels necessary.
Cod psyc. aside, you fail to note two important political issues:
1) BJ is a gambler, politics wise. He would call any UDI 'all in'. It would be absolutely laughed at south of the border. Would be termed 'a pantomine coup' or a 'Tartan takeover' and would be doomed to fail. Any move that way would kill Sindy stone dead for 100 years. 2) In the final analysis, losing Scotland doesn't hurt the Tories in England. It actually makes life easier, election wise.
The implication of possession by England shown by the word "losing" is very telling.
England shorn of one of its last imperial subjects would be diminished and it would be absolute ego death for tories regardless of any electoral boon it may grant. You only have to see how tories on here hatefuck the idea of Scottish Independence when it comes up every 3 to 5 minutes.
A bit of distortion of history going on there I think.
The Scottish Parliament voted for a Union. You could argue - fairly - that its members were bribed mercilessly to vote for it but they voted for it. Scotland, at the time, was in a bit of a dire position because of the failure of the Darien expedition. However, they were not forced at gunpoint.
Moreover, at the time, England was also under the rule of a Stuart monarch i.e. the Scottish Royal family that had taken over the throne of England. Despite the Act of Settlement, there was also a decent chance that the Old Pretender could have picked up the throne once Anne died, thus leading to continued Stuart rule.
This was not an Ireland style situation where the English massacred the population and treated them as second class citizens. Even at Culloden, there was a fair amount of Lowland Scottish participation in the "English" ranks.
I agree with the view that no Parliament can bind its successor, so if Scotland wants to become independent, then it should do so and we shouldn't be talking about stopping Scotland breaking away by force. But trying to claim that Scotland was a victim of English imperialism is stretching it.
As of March 2018, the number of complaints was two, of which one had been previously dealt with under existing procedures. AIUI, All the others were reported subsequent to the 29 March and April 2 2018 meetings.
Hague’s 2008 reference is stretching the timeframe to include the “killer heels” comment of the exaggerated Edinburgh Airport incident.
Exactly , the high heeled shoes set off the alarm and had to be taken to be scanned and Salmond said "Killer heels " and these morons try to make that a sexual assault. Plus the original was said to be a "concern" and was not a formal complaint. I wonder if that was the one that pulled out leaving only the ones reported at a later stage.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I'm curious. In every other country in Europe that I am aware of, you show ID when you go to vote. National ID card etc.
What confidence do you have in their electoral processes, and why?
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
David you eloquently show why people want independence, the tale of the woes of the two major cities under the union showing abject poverty and deprivation after 300 years of union. It is testament to subjugation that 100% of people do not want it and soon. You show the paucity of the union argument perfectly, kind of makes a mockery of those broad shoulders, caring and sharing , etc.
I'm quite happy to accept that Jews are an ethnic (minority) group. However, there's a bit of rewriting of history going on here today. I don't recall anybody ever referring to Ed Miliband or Michael Howard as party leaders of a minority ethnic background, despite the hints of anti-semitism in some commentary on both of them. Until today, on here.
Well you are wrong, people did mention it certainly of Ed M. Sadly it's also how I discovered by father was a racist based on how he referred to Ed M.
It's also completely immaterial whether people have been consistent as to whether something is a fact. The SLab position is not correct. I don't think there's anything sinister about that in the slightest, but whatever the motivation of people pointing it out that you wish to critique, the point being made is still correct.
Interesting point that imo can be overthought. Jewish - the race not the religion - is a minority ethnic grouping in the UK. That's a fact. But BAME has a black/brown/asian vibe for me, regardless of what the acronym stands for. BAME is not white. So, you ask me if a Jewish person here is a member of an ethnic minority, I'll say yes. But ask me if Ed Miliband is BAME and I'll instinctively say no. It feels wrong to say that.
I think that is a fair point - the definition of BAME doesn't exclude white minority ethnic populations, but that is how it is generally talked about and treated.
But that rather illustrates the point that it is a poor acronym to use, as well as occasionally the difficulties with precise ethnic classification (the example used near me locally is people from generation to generation marking things differently in terms of ethnicity in the census, in respect of a sizable grouping which came over from Morocco). If it is meant to be a catch all for the non-white population, then it needs a different term.
Because there is a conflict here between recognising genuine ongoing issues with regards race, and an over focus on ethnicity on all issues at all times.
Well for me we do have that word for not white - it's Bame. No need for another. It started out as an acronym but is now a word. There are lots of acronyms that become words such that what the letters stand for - or originally stood for - is secondary or forgotten. Fiat.
It is quite literally not what the word means.
The word has a literal meaning and is used in statistics etc so understanding what a word actually means is important and not to be flippantly thrown away.
It's close enough to what it means to be what it means - and acronyms do sometimes develop into common currency words with a wider or narrower meaning than they started out as.
It's close enough for you since Jews don't count as real people?
No it is not close enough. Jews are a persecuted ethnic minority. They do count.
If your mental image of "Bame" is "not white", it means you consider Jews to be sub-human?
The site is not improved by this standard of conversation.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
They have a lot of work to do. The likes of @Theuniondivvie has a very valid point when he claims that the Unionist parties' platform for the last several elections is nothing more than no to independence and no second referendum.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Yes, it is a valid point. On the other hand Scotland is perpetually ruled by a rather corrupt party whose overriding obsession is breaking up the Union, with a referendum, while ignoring and neglecting Scotland’s actual problems - so it is understandable why unionist parties react as they do, but from the opposite side
The best thing for Scotland (in terms of realistic expectations) is if the SNP do unexpectedly badly in May, do not get a majority, and have to accept there’s no indyref on the near horizon. THEN they might actually turn their attention to proper governance, with all the many, real powers they already have. And London must be willing to help. We are a union. That’s what unions are for.
The best solution would be a coalition unionist government after May who could start the process of decontaminating our civil service, our legal system and our third sector whilst at the same time looking to address the economic problems that have been neglected at least in part to generate discontent. But Labour has already ruled this out.
For the SNP every problem is a grievance and grievances are there to be nurtured for the greater good. It's pretty dismal.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
I'm curious. In every other country in Europe that I am aware of, you show ID when you go to vote. National ID card etc.
What confidence do you have in their electoral processes, and why?
We have no national ID in this country, and no tradition of being able to provide such ID on demand. Such attempts to introduce such measures have always been treated with opposition and suspicion. That other countries have different histories is irrelevant.
So on balance, do leading SNP politicians want to Scottish Independence, or not?
If they do, they can't afford to waste Johnson. As soon as he is replaced by somebody significantly less loathsome - ie anybody else except Gove - their task becomes much harder.
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
UDI. Right. Good idea.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
I don't know if you noticed that a week ago someone had pulled up an old thread from I think 2009. There was one post from an excitable individual asking for the smelly Nats to be banned so they could go off an discuss their referendum that they definitely weren't going to get somewhere else.
What we'd give for that level of prescient Scotch expertise now.
You’re still not getting a referendum. As you know
I'm quite content that BJ and co carry on with the line beloved of nonentities on here that 'We' (Brexit loving, Tory electing English) are not going to allow 'you' (smelly Jocks) a referendum.
Oh god no, Boris should never talk like this. He should be unfailingly polite and couch any refusal in the vaguest terms with lots of respect for Holyrood plus an offer of a Royal Commission on the Future Constitution blah blah blah
I’m just giving you the reality, like a fine Islay malt, best served neat
When ever some twat starts going on about Islay malts, it always brings this to mind.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
They have a lot of work to do. The likes of @Theuniondivvie has a very valid point when he claims that the Unionist parties' platform for the last several elections is nothing more than no to independence and no second referendum.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Yes, it is a valid point. On the other hand Scotland is perpetually ruled by a rather corrupt party whose overriding obsession is breaking up the Union, with a referendum, while ignoring and neglecting Scotland’s actual problems - so it is understandable why unionist parties react as they do, but from the opposite side
The best thing for Scotland (in terms of realistic expectations) is if the SNP do unexpectedly badly in May, do not get a majority, and have to accept there’s no indyref on the near horizon. THEN they might actually turn their attention to proper governance, with all the many, real powers they already have. And London must be willing to help. We are a union. That’s what unions are for.
You really are barking, given your lack of any knowledge of Scotland shown by your drivel, perhaps you should look closer to home.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
David you eloquently show why people want independence, the tale of the woes of the two major cities under the union showing abject poverty and deprivation after 300 years of union. It is testament to subjugation that 100% of people do not want it and soon. You show the paucity of the union argument perfectly, kind of makes a mockery of those broad shoulders, caring and sharing , etc.
It is an unsustainable argument to claim that Brexit will solve the issues of the British left behind towns, but that Scottish independence will make things worse in the Scottish equivalent.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
Incidentally, having followed the links on the "pilots" for Voter ID that have been pursued - i don't see much evidence of them having been carried out in areas where they are quite likely to have a significant negative impact.
I'd agree I don't think it is needed here because the system works well. Somebody marks off your name with your address. One of the reasons why it works so well is because our voting system is not particularly complicated - you either vote in person or via a postal vote which has to arrive before a certain date.
There probably are cases of people impersonating others but either (a) it gets found out quickly (somebody turns up and then is told they have already voted) or (b) there is a complicit agreement ("I can't be bothered, just go and vote for me", in which case it's hard to get heated up over it.
The US situation is entirely different because of the complexity of rules and voting measures. Also bear in mind the ACLU etc are not exactly neutral parties. One reason (probably the main one) they are so interested in the UK changes is because they are concerned the Republicans will use the UK adopting Photo ID as an argument and justification for bringing it in at the state level.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
Incidentally, having followed the links on the "pilots" for Voter ID that have been pursued - i don't see much evidence of them having been carried out in areas where they are quite likely to have a significant negative impact.
Wouldn't it be nice to know that every single vote cast in this country was legitimate? That's an enhancement to democracy, just as illegal voting is a dilution of it. Quite what business it is of US civil rights groups is also a mystery - perhaps they could try minding their own business, as they have quite enough to be getting on with over there.
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
Ah. Yes I see. Thanks
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
That is the poll I referred to iearlier and is the first in 22 not to show independence in the lead
Fascinating map. I understand why the Borders hate indy, I think I know why Orkney is so No (English incomers, less Scots identity, Norse ancestry?) but I confess I have absolutely no clue why Dundee is passionately Yes.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Two cities in Scotland voted yes. They are respectively the worst and second worst for educational attainment in Scotland. This is not a coincidence. Beyond the simplistic ignorance that this implies it is also the case that these 2 cities have the worst drug problems in Europe, very poor life expectancy, chronic poverty, very poor housing and relatively few opportunities for the majority of their school leavers. As with Brexit they do not see the status quo delivering for them, quite the reverse and are willing to put their faith in something else.
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
The SNP were strong in Dundee from the 1970s onwards.
Does it all date back to the 1973 byelection ?
Gordon Wilson, who very nearly won that bye election and subsequently won the seat, was a phenomenal organiser and campaigner in his younger days. He is seriously out of fashion with the current leadership but he was a dynamic leader at the time. Corruption in the Labour group on the Council helped too.
The turning point from my own observation was after the first Gulf war. Trade Unions, who had always been strong in Dundee, were supposedly campaigning for Labour in the City Centre but were shouting out vote for the warmonger. They were deeply disillusioned and old Labour in the City was falling apart.
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
Incidentally, having followed the links on the "pilots" for Voter ID that have been pursued - i don't see much evidence of them having been carried out in areas where they are quite likely to have a significant negative impact.
Wouldn't it be nice to know that every single vote cast in this country was legitimate? That's an enhancement to democracy, just as illegal voting is a dilution of it. Quite what business it is of US civil rights groups is also a mystery - perhaps they could try minding their own business, as they have quite enough to be getting on with over there.
The US civil rights groups are concerned the Republicans will point to the UK as an example of Photo ID rules being brought in to protect against false voting. It's not concern over the UK. The civil rights groups are overwhelmingly pro-Democrat (and don't seem particularly exercised about right-leaning civil liberties)
I'm quite happy to accept that Jews are an ethnic (minority) group. However, there's a bit of rewriting of history going on here today. I don't recall anybody ever referring to Ed Miliband or Michael Howard as party leaders of a minority ethnic background, despite the hints of anti-semitism in some commentary on both of them. Until today, on here.
Well you are wrong, people did mention it certainly of Ed M. Sadly it's also how I discovered by father was a racist based on how he referred to Ed M.
It's also completely immaterial whether people have been consistent as to whether something is a fact. The SLab position is not correct. I don't think there's anything sinister about that in the slightest, but whatever the motivation of people pointing it out that you wish to critique, the point being made is still correct.
Interesting point that imo can be overthought. Jewish - the race not the religion - is a minority ethnic grouping in the UK. That's a fact. But BAME has a black/brown/asian vibe for me, regardless of what the acronym stands for. BAME is not white. So, you ask me if a Jewish person here is a member of an ethnic minority, I'll say yes. But ask me if Ed Miliband is BAME and I'll instinctively say no. It feels wrong to say that.
I think that is a fair point - the definition of BAME doesn't exclude white minority ethnic populations, but that is how it is generally talked about and treated.
But that rather illustrates the point that it is a poor acronym to use, as well as occasionally the difficulties with precise ethnic classification (the example used near me locally is people from generation to generation marking things differently in terms of ethnicity in the census, in respect of a sizable grouping which came over from Morocco). If it is meant to be a catch all for the non-white population, then it needs a different term.
Because there is a conflict here between recognising genuine ongoing issues with regards race, and an over focus on ethnicity on all issues at all times.
Well for me we do have that word for not white - it's Bame. No need for another. It started out as an acronym but is now a word. There are lots of acronyms that become words such that what the letters stand for - or originally stood for - is secondary or forgotten. Fiat.
It is quite literally not what the word means.
The word has a literal meaning and is used in statistics etc so understanding what a word actually means is important and not to be flippantly thrown away.
It's close enough to what it means to be what it means - and acronyms do sometimes develop into common currency words with a wider or narrower meaning than they started out as.
It's close enough for you since Jews don't count as real people?
No it is not close enough. Jews are a persecuted ethnic minority. They do count.
If your mental image of "Bame" is "not white", it means you consider Jews to be sub-human?
The site is not improved by this standard of conversation.
There's really no reason for you to continue to attempt to justify your ongoing attempts to minimise racial prejudice and discrimination against those of the minority Jewish ethnicity.
It's a shame you can't accept Jews count and shouldn't be persecuted like they are.
Comments
I wonder if once we get beyond the true "priority groups" ie. towards the sub 50 age range, there may be an argument in some specific areas for trialling some sort of "anonymous" jabs - where people can just turn up no questions asked. Or is that just not feasible given the need for record keeping and for consent purposes?
What reasons are there for this slower take up in Newham?
Is it age related or concentrations of people unwilling to take the jab or a mixture thereof?
It strikes me as strange that those sections of society that seem to be at more risk of a poor outcome if they caught Covid have a more than average reluctance to get vaccinated.
And so the ludicrous, clattering, soul-crushing bandwagon of Wokeness rolls on
You seem very fair in all you posts on the subject.
Much appreciated.
https://twitter.com/Phil_Baty/status/1365793967565111299?s=20
They need to go UDI, general strike or organise their own referendum but call it a survey or something. Anything to get their shot before Johnson succumbs to long covid, syphillis or the 1922.
It’s not long for this world. If Kinabalu is not get careful he will still be using it next year and he’ll get cancelled. However, I predict he will execute a perfect 180 and eagerly use the new word, whatever it is, while simultaneously claiming he always regarded ‘BAME’ as bigoted and ugly
I find him a very useful poster who puts up with incredible amount of sh1t.
The issue is wide spread anti-vax memes and propaganda. Quite a lot of it is Naomi Wolf grade wibble.
The bond markets will love that. In the aftermath of the biggest recession in 300 years, and the greatest global crisis since WW2, Scotland illegally cuts itself off from its own currency, central bank, Treasury, Supreme Court and seat of government. Meanwhile causing civil strife at home and making every country in the EU shudder and think: no way they’re ever getting in, even if it works
Scotland is already a rainy banana republic. Now they want to go the whole hog and have a coup and a civil war, as well. Brilliant.
Hague’s 2008 reference is stretching the timeframe to include the “killer heels” comment of the exaggerated Edinburgh Airport incident.
And the lowest region is Paris:
https://covidtracker.fr/vaccintracker/
Racism - historic and now - is a blight of a thousand times the magnitude and a thousand times the malignancy of the excesses of Wokeness.
I'm afraid that obsessing about Woke has become a tell.
His whole life is a perpetual and largely fruitless search for the affection his malignant father withheld. He can't bear any hint of unpopularity and will rapidly abandon any conviction or position as he feels necessary.
ETA actually maybe the answer is less conspiracy than cock-up and someone accidentally typed 16 when they meant the homophonic 60.
Its a lot harder to go against the crowd when there's only 1% of you compared with when there's 10% or 20% or more.
You remember Snowflake?
https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1365664500637184005
What we'd give for that level of prescient Scotch expertise now.
In an amazing coincidence, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was suddenly removed from having an active role as Deciding Officer who had the final say whether to take action, and her Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans given the role.
No it is not close enough. Jews are a persecuted ethnic minority. They do count.
Can a scotch expert explain?
Note also that in the latest polling on this, UDI is supported by just 18% of Scots. So any party just suggesting it would get massacred in an election. Sturgeon, who is also rarely stupid, knows all this which is why she is so allergic to the idea
Catalunya anyone?
1) BJ is a gambler, politics wise. He would call any UDI 'all in'. It would be absolutely laughed at south of the border. Would be termed 'a pantomine coup' or a 'Tartan takeover' and would be doomed to fail. Any move that way would kill Sindy stone dead for 100 years.
2) In the final analysis, losing Scotland doesn't hurt the Tories in England. It actually makes life easier, election wise.
I’m just giving you the reality, like a fine Islay malt, best served neat
I know that Independence would make their lot worse with the same confidence that remainers knew the truth about Brexit. The challenge for the Union is to address the problems that have so alienated them, not to be condescending or patronising in the way that Remain were. It's not going to be easy.
The person who excused anti-Semitism for years is now referring to a word he considers to be "anti-racism" ... but deliberately excludes Jews from anti-racism.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
https://twitter.com/adrianmckinty/status/1212751819782275072?s=20
I may be dismissive of indyref2 right now (because I really am 99% sure Boris will, rightly, say No) but eventually a second referendum WILL come - as it did in Quebec, and by then unionists will need better arguments: as you say.
I actually think more thoughtful Tories are beginning to grasp this. It helps that they’ve got someone like Ruth Davidson to explain it to them
Claire Fox disgusts me.
England shorn of one of its last imperial subjects would be diminished and it would be absolute ego death for tories regardless of any electoral boon it may grant. You only have to see how tories on here hatefuck the idea of Scottish Independence when it comes up every 3 to 5 minutes.
Not easy, this trolling internet whataboutery, is it?
There is no reason BAME will be immune to this iron law. Especially as it is hideous and patronising.
I’m actually willing to bet on this, if we can frame the wager coherently.
It concerns me that no one seems to think seriously about how the continuing decline in Scottish education could be arrested and reversed, how our Universities are going to cope if the number of £9k a year English students is suddenly cut, how Scotland is going to attract and retain service jobs in financial services, IT and new technologies, how we can thrive as a part of a successful Union rather than simply grimly clinging on to it. I want to see any of the Unionist parties developing a program that can begin to address Scotland's fairly serious problems. I am not seeing it at the moment.
Could you explain your reasoning? Virtually every serious study concludes that voting system used deeply affects all of those.
Does it all date back to the 1973 byelection ?
I stand by saying Claire Fox disgusts me.
I stand by saying Claire Fox should NOT be in the Lord's.
I don't try to excuse Fox to justify my vote. I stand by my principles and say Fox does not meet them.
Kinabalu justified anti-Semitism for years, now wants anti-racism to exclude Jews. If you don't see the difference I don't know how to explain it. 🤷🏻♂️
https://twitter.com/swgannon/status/1365950531190067200?s=20
And Sarwar has just a few weeks to raise these sort of points, or he needn’t have bothered.
Keir shows the danger of doing nothing and saying less.
You think Jews don't count and want anti-racism terminology to deliberately excludes Jews as that's close enough.
By your own words and actions you are an anti-Semite. You may appeal next week.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/28/using-photo-id-in-british-elections-will-harm-democracy-say-us-civil-rights-groups
I don't care whether the Government is genuine in its claims that it is acting to improve confidence in the electoral process, or embarked on basic US style voter suppression.
This is just a fundamentally bad move, will i think only result in reduced confidence in the electoral process (contrary to its claimed justification and such changes should only be made on actual evidence of failings in the existing system, not claimed "potential" for failings. Potential for undetected electoral fraud is almost always exaggerated by those who propose measures to combat it.
It is easy to point to theoretical failings or gaps in the UK constitutional system. But few ever ask why, if those failings are so easy to exploit, why is there so little evidence of it ever happening. The UK constitution never makes much sense in theory. But it works. And most of the evidence of the last 20-30 years is that making changes based on removing the theoretically absurdities usually exposes flaws in the theory.
Incidentally, having followed the links on the "pilots" for Voter ID that have been pursued - i don't see much evidence of them having been carried out in areas where they are quite likely to have a significant negative impact.
The best thing for Scotland (in terms of realistic expectations) is if the SNP do unexpectedly badly in May, do not get a majority, and have to accept there’s no indyref on the near horizon. THEN they might actually turn their attention to proper governance, with all the many, real powers they already have. And London must be willing to help. We are a union. That’s what unions are for.
The Scottish Parliament voted for a Union. You could argue - fairly - that its members were bribed mercilessly to vote for it but they voted for it. Scotland, at the time, was in a bit of a dire position because of the failure of the Darien expedition. However, they were not forced at gunpoint.
Moreover, at the time, England was also under the rule of a Stuart monarch i.e. the Scottish Royal family that had taken over the throne of England. Despite the Act of Settlement, there was also a decent chance that the Old Pretender could have picked up the throne once Anne died, thus leading to continued Stuart rule.
This was not an Ireland style situation where the English massacred the population and treated them as second class citizens. Even at Culloden, there was a fair amount of Lowland Scottish participation in the "English" ranks.
I agree with the view that no Parliament can bind its successor, so if Scotland wants to become independent, then it should do so and we shouldn't be talking about stopping Scotland breaking away by force. But trying to claim that Scotland was a victim of English imperialism is stretching it.
What confidence do you have in their electoral processes, and why?
The site is not improved by this standard of conversation.
For the SNP every problem is a grievance and grievances are there to be nurtured for the greater good. It's pretty dismal.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1366016064178581506
There probably are cases of people impersonating others but either (a) it gets found out quickly (somebody turns up and then is told they have already voted) or (b) there is a complicit agreement ("I can't be bothered, just go and vote for me", in which case it's hard to get heated up over it.
The US situation is entirely different because of the complexity of rules and voting measures. Also bear in mind the ACLU etc are not exactly neutral parties. One reason (probably the main one) they are so interested in the UK changes is because they are concerned the Republicans will use the UK adopting Photo ID as an argument and justification for bringing it in at the state level.
Good to have you back, malcy
The turning point from my own observation was after the first Gulf war. Trade Unions, who had always been strong in Dundee, were supposedly campaigning for Labour in the City Centre but were shouting out vote for the warmonger. They were deeply disillusioned and old Labour in the City was falling apart.
It's a shame you can't accept Jews count and shouldn't be persecuted like they are.