Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Apart from one poll Salmond’s Alba party looks doomed – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited April 8 in General
imageApart from one poll Salmond’s Alba party looks doomed – politicalbetting.com

Thanks to David Cowling for the latest tables.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 2,908
    First, much unlike Salmond.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 83,578
    If Salmond fails to win a seat so also disappears any pressure Sturgeon might feel to declare UDI if the SNP win a majority and hold a referendum and Boris as is likely ignores the result.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 2,908
    edited April 8
    HYUFD said:

    If Salmond fails to win a seat so also disappears any pressure Sturgeon might feel to declare UDI if the SNP win a majority and hold a referendum and Boris as is likely ignores the result.

    Out of interest, is there any credible outcome of the Holyrood elections that isn't a massive, crushing win for the Conservatives/Union in your opinion?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 57,199
    Is this the right place to get an AZN jab?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 83,578
    edited April 8
    Chameleon said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Salmond fails to win a seat so also disappears any pressure Sturgeon might feel to declare UDI if the SNP win a majority and hold a referendum and Boris as is likely ignores the result.

    Out of interest, is there any credible outcome of the Holyrood elections that isn't a big win for the Conservatives/Union in your opinion?
    If the Nationalists win a majority then Boris can continue to press home that failing to vote Tory at the 2024 UK general election means a minority Labour government with Starmer propped up by the SNP and a divisive indyref2 that Boris would keep refusing.

    If Unionists win a majority then that of course removes the chance of Sturgeon even trying for an indyref2 anyway
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    Is it possible Salmond won't get a seat? The Scottish list system is so opaque I don't know

    The humiliation of THAT would be profound, for him
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 47,560
    Good performances from Spain, France & Germany:

    https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/


  • kle4kle4 Posts: 64,142
    edited April 8
    Leon said:

    Is it possible Salmond won't get a seat? The Scottish list system is so opaque I don't know

    The humiliation of THAT would be profound, for him

    The funniest outcome, though hardly my preferred one (a vanishingly unlikely unionist majority), is that Salmond, and only Salmond, gets a seat for Alba.

    Perched between unionists who hate him, and the SNP who will despise him for being a splitter, for 4 years. Without any backup.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,108
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Is it possible Salmond won't get a seat? The Scottish list system is so opaque I don't know

    The humiliation of THAT would be profound, for him

    The funniest outcome, though hardly my preferred one (a vanishingly unlikely unionist majority), is that Salmond, and only Salmond, gets a seat for Alba.

    Perched between unionists who hate him, and the SNP who will despise him for being a splitter, for 4 years. Without any backup.
    Point of order. With his arse, won’t he require two seats?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Is it possible Salmond won't get a seat? The Scottish list system is so opaque I don't know

    The humiliation of THAT would be profound, for him

    The funniest outcome, though hardly my preferred one (a vanishingly unlikely unionist majority), is that Salmond, and only Salmond, gets a seat for Alba.

    Perched between unionists who hate him, and the SNP who will despise him for being a splitter, for 4 years. Without any backup.
    Yes, I'd rather like to see that

    He would be so offended and angry he would goad Sturgeon even more
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727
    It's a bit cruel, but OMFG the woman on the bottom left. What has happened to her chin?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491
    edited April 8
    One of the tropes the Nats trot out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 83,578

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
  • LeonLeon Posts: 4,727

    One of the tropes the Nats trot out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Is it possible they actually believe that?!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 19,426
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Is it possible Salmond won't get a seat? The Scottish list system is so opaque I don't know

    The humiliation of THAT would be profound, for him

    The funniest outcome, though hardly my preferred one (a vanishingly unlikely unionist majority), is that Salmond, and only Salmond, gets a seat for Alba.

    Perched between unionists who hate him, and the SNP who will despise him for being a splitter, for 4 years. Without any backup.
    Vastly more funny is if Alba get one MSP and it is not Salmond.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491
    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 19,426

    One of the tropes the Nats trot out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Even as an extremely online Scot Nat Twitter user I have never seen that said by anyone.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 13,261
    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Is it possible Salmond won't get a seat? The Scottish list system is so opaque I don't know

    The humiliation of THAT would be profound, for him

    The funniest outcome, though hardly my preferred one (a vanishingly unlikely unionist majority), is that Salmond, and only Salmond, gets a seat for Alba.

    Perched between unionists who hate him, and the SNP who will despise him for being a splitter, for 4 years. Without any backup.
    Vastly more funny is if Alba get one MSP and it is not Salmond.
    This. Not sure what would happen - I would bet on Alba and Salmond parting ways not long after.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491
    Leon said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trot out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Is it possible they actually believe that?!
    Yes

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19039315.snp-can-use-principle-self-determination-override-indyref2-veto/

    and they've looked at using the The International Court of Justice as well.

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-could-use-international-law-push-indyref2-says-former-un-adviser-3112114
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 26,402
    edited April 8
    If the Holyrood election proves a total scrub for the dinosaurs (not impossible imo), perhaps a reality show can be made with them all living in a house; Salmond, Sheridan, Craig Murray, Sillars, Galloway et al, Rula Lenska coming in occasionally to feed them. George could give them tips on avoiding televised behaviour that may prevent anyone taking them seriously ever again.

    Sure to be a massive bidding war between RT and GB News for the rights.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798
    Which suits the Conservatives down to the ground, bearing in mind the three possible outcomes of Indyref2:

    (a) Yes wins, Boris Johnson then goes down in history as the Prime Minister who lost the Union and probably has to resign
    (b) No wins, Scotland's nationalist voters get even more pissed off and the SNP continues to win Scottish elections ad infinitum - in which case, what was the point?
    (b) No wins, the wind goes right out of the SNP's sails, and Scottish voters decide to vote for parties that might actually sit in a UK Government. Result: the bulk of them go back to Labour, and it becomes substantially easier for Labour to win a General Election

    The incentive for the current Government to concede a referendum, regardless of how large a majority can be found for it at Holyrood, is therefore exactly nil.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491
    Alistair said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trot out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Even as an extremely online Scot Nat Twitter user I have never seen that said by anyone.
    You need to look harder.

    https://twitter.com/Lairdscott01/status/1354098345732689938

    https://twitter.com/SaorAlba59/status/1354053645017501697
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,850
    France is going to be in lockdown for some time if they want to slow COVID down.

    R=1.2 ish.


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 83,578

    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
    Only with a 2/3 UN General Assembly vote if it is a matter that threatens global peace and security
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 26,402
    Alistair said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trot out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Even as an extremely online Scot Nat Twitter user I have never seen that said by anyone.
    Unionist fever dreams are weird.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 19,861
    HYUFD said:

    Chameleon said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Salmond fails to win a seat so also disappears any pressure Sturgeon might feel to declare UDI if the SNP win a majority and hold a referendum and Boris as is likely ignores the result.

    Out of interest, is there any credible outcome of the Holyrood elections that isn't a big win for the Conservatives/Union in your opinion?
    If the Nationalists win a majority then Boris can continue to press home that failing to vote Tory at the 2024 UK general election means a minority Labour government with Starmer propped up by the SNP and a divisive indyref2 that Boris would keep refusing.

    If Unionists win a majority then that of course removes the chance of Sturgeon even trying for an indyref2 anyway
    Not propped up. Supported by.

    Will be doing this correction until you drop it. Let's see who blinks first.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426

    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
    How?

    A Permanent member can be kicked out of the UN, like China [Taiwan as permanent member] was. But short of that how do they override a veto?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 64,142

    Which suits the Conservatives down to the ground, bearing in mind the three possible outcomes of Indyref2:

    (a) Yes wins, Boris Johnson then goes down in history as the Prime Minister who lost the Union and probably has to resign
    (b) No wins, Scotland's nationalist voters get even more pissed off and the SNP continues to win Scottish elections ad infinitum - in which case, what was the point?
    (b) No wins, the wind goes right out of the SNP's sails, and Scottish voters decide to vote for parties that might actually sit in a UK Government. Result: the bulk of them go back to Labour, and it becomes substantially easier for Labour to win a General Election

    The incentive for the current Government to concede a referendum, regardless of how large a majority can be found for it at Holyrood, is therefore exactly nil.
    Indeed. I don't agree morally with the position of denying one, especially when(if) Sindy parties win in May, but I understand why the government, perceiving the options, would choose that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 83,578

    Alistair said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trot out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Even as an extremely online Scot Nat Twitter user I have never seen that said by anyone.
    You need to look harder.

    https://twitter.com/Lairdscott01/status/1354098345732689938

    https://twitter.com/SaorAlba59/status/1354053645017501697
    It can hold a referendum, the Scotland Act 1998 however reserves the future of the Union to the UK government
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
    Only with a 2/3 UN General Assembly vote if it is a matter that threatens global peace and security
    Well they can cite your posts about sending the armed forces to quell Scottish nationalism as proof that you and the UK government are threatening peace and security.

    Plenty of military conflicts stated off small anded up pretty big.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491

    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
    How?

    A Permanent member can be kicked out of the UN, like China [Taiwan as permanent member] was. But short of that how do they override a veto?
    You call a vote of the 190 odd member countries, if two thirds or more vote to override the veto then the veto is overridden.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426
    Biden: Homicide is the leading cause of African American males aged 15-34

    Jeez. That's terrible.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 83,578
    edited April 8

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
    Only with a 2/3 UN General Assembly vote if it is a matter that threatens global peace and security
    Well they can cite your posts about sending the armed forces to quell Scottish nationalism as proof that you and the UK government are threatening peace and security.

    Plenty of military conflicts stated off small anded up pretty big.
    That would only be in response to rioting and civil disorder by Salmondite hardliners.

    It would need a 2/3 majority which is unlikely anyway and even if it was what would they do? Send in a UN peacekeeping force to Glasgow? As that worked so well in Bosnia and Rwanda
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 19,426

    Alistair said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trot out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Even as an extremely online Scot Nat Twitter user I have never seen that said by anyone.
    You need to look harder.

    https://twitter.com/Lairdscott01/status/1354098345732689938

    https://twitter.com/SaorAlba59/status/1354053645017501697
    Or maybe I don't need to look...

    In general avoiding anyone with an Alba logo in their profile is a pretty solid move.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 6,424

    If the Holyrood election proves a total scrub for the dinosaurs (not impossible imo), perhaps a reality show can be made with them all living in a house; Salmond, Sheridan, Craig Murray, Galloway et al, Rula Lenska coming in occasionally to feed them. George could give them tips on avoiding televised behaviour that may prevent anyone taking them seriously ever again.

    Sure to be a massive bidding war between RT and GB News for the rights.

    I thought SNP and RT loved each other? Maybe not now Salmond has revealed true colours and has now surpassed Boris Johnson as the most ridiculous fat middle aged egotist in the British Isles?

    I suspect Putin still loves the Scottish Nasty Party though, so I am sure independence will still get plenty of airtime from Vlad's mouthpiece. Funny how despots and fascists tend to have a mutual attraction with the Scottish nationalist cause. Birds of a feather and all that I guess.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 19,861

    If the Holyrood election proves a total scrub for the dinosaurs (not impossible imo), perhaps a reality show can be made with them all living in a house; Salmond, Sheridan, Craig Murray, Sillars, Galloway et al, Rula Lenska coming in occasionally to feed them. George could give them tips on avoiding televised behaviour that may prevent anyone taking them seriously ever again.

    Sure to be a massive bidding war between RT and GB News for the rights.

    ☺ - Voice over Andrew Neil. Total winner.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,108

    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
    How?

    A Permanent member can be kicked out of the UN, like China [Taiwan as permanent member] was. But short of that how do they override a veto?
    You call a vote of the 190 odd member countries, if two thirds or more vote to override the veto then the veto is overridden.
    And the USA withdraws from the UN. Alongside possibly China (though it might want what remains as a fig leaf) and Russia.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trot out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Even as an extremely online Scot Nat Twitter user I have never seen that said by anyone.
    You need to look harder.

    https://twitter.com/Lairdscott01/status/1354098345732689938

    https://twitter.com/SaorAlba59/status/1354053645017501697
    Or maybe I don't need to look...

    In general avoiding anyone with an Alba logo in their profile is a pretty solid move.
    IIRC the first tweet is an SNP supporter, keeps on banging on about both votes for the SNP.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,176
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chameleon said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Salmond fails to win a seat so also disappears any pressure Sturgeon might feel to declare UDI if the SNP win a majority and hold a referendum and Boris as is likely ignores the result.

    Out of interest, is there any credible outcome of the Holyrood elections that isn't a big win for the Conservatives/Union in your opinion?
    If the Nationalists win a majority then Boris can continue to press home that failing to vote Tory at the 2024 UK general election means a minority Labour government with Starmer propped up by the SNP and a divisive indyref2 that Boris would keep refusing.

    If Unionists win a majority then that of course removes the chance of Sturgeon even trying for an indyref2 anyway
    Not propped up. Supported by.

    Will be doing this correction until you drop it. Let's see who blinks first.
    Neither is correct. 'Controlled by' is the term that would describe the reality of the situation. And just like in 2015, the voters will notice that reality too.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 27,595
    MattW said:

    France is going to be in lockdown for some time if they want to slow COVID down.

    R=1.2 ish.


    As long as the six months we will have been in by June?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 6,424

    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
    Really? Unless matters have changed I think that is pretty difficult if not impossible. The "UN" moved against North Korea in the Korean war because Russia was boycotting UN at the time over it's refusal to recognise Maoist China, but I am not aware of any time when a Permanent Member veto has actually been outflanked.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491
    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    France is going to be in lockdown for some time if they want to slow COVID down.

    R=1.2 ish.


    As long as the six months we will have been in by June?
    Some of us have been in lockdown since October.

    I know people in the North East and Leicestershire have been in lockdown for even longer than that.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 19,861
    Leon said:

    It's a bit cruel, but OMFG the woman on the bottom left. What has happened to her chin?
    I'd say it's the bloke bottom right with the bigger problem. Very blotchy.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,108

    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
    Really? Unless matters have changed I think that is pretty difficult if not impossible. The "UN" moved against North Korea in the Korean war because Russia was boycotting UN at the time over it's refusal to recognise Maoist China, but I am not aware of any time when a Permanent Member veto has actually been outflanked.
    The 2/3 thing came about as an assertion around Suez I think. He’s right that it’s there, but the US would never tolerate the precedent.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,427

    Alistair said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trot out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Even as an extremely online Scot Nat Twitter user I have never seen that said by anyone.
    You need to look harder.

    https://twitter.com/Lairdscott01/status/1354098345732689938

    https://twitter.com/SaorAlba59/status/1354053645017501697
    LOL

    a lawyer told me I have a case

    good luck with that
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426
    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    France is going to be in lockdown for some time if they want to slow COVID down.

    R=1.2 ish.


    As long as the six months we will have been in by June?
    Yes, since they entered their second national lockdown in October 2020 and haven't left it since. So they're already at six months and counting.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 5,439
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chameleon said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Salmond fails to win a seat so also disappears any pressure Sturgeon might feel to declare UDI if the SNP win a majority and hold a referendum and Boris as is likely ignores the result.

    Out of interest, is there any credible outcome of the Holyrood elections that isn't a big win for the Conservatives/Union in your opinion?
    If the Nationalists win a majority then Boris can continue to press home that failing to vote Tory at the 2024 UK general election means a minority Labour government with Starmer propped up by the SNP and a divisive indyref2 that Boris would keep refusing.

    If Unionists win a majority then that of course removes the chance of Sturgeon even trying for an indyref2 anyway
    Not propped up. Supported by.

    Will be doing this correction until you drop it. Let's see who blinks first.
    'In conjunction with'?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491

    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
    Really? Unless matters have changed I think that is pretty difficult if not impossible. The "UN" moved against North Korea in the Korean war because Russia was boycotting UN at the time over it's refusal to recognise Maoist China, but I am not aware of any time when a Permanent Member veto has actually been outflanked.
    Yes, really. This article from 2003 is an explainer of sorts.

    It was even used against us once.

    There’s an esoteric maneuver to get around a threatened veto: invoking the obscure U.N. Resolution 377, also known as the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution. In early 1950, the United States pushed through the resolution as a means of circumventing possible Soviet vetoes. The measure states that, in the event that the Security Council cannot maintain international peace, a matter can be taken up by the General Assembly. This procedure has been used 10 times so far, most notably in 1956 to help resolve the Suez Canal crisis. Britain and France, which were occupying parts of the canal at the time, vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for their withdrawal. The United States called for an emergency “Uniting for Peace” session of the General Assembly, which passed a withdrawal resolution. (A simple majority vote is required.) Britain and France pulled out shortly after.

    Yet these non-Security Council resolutions are more symbolic pressure tactics than anything else. The council still maintains responsibility for enforcement, so naysayers among the permanent members can likely prevent the actual dispatching of troops. Nor, as history has shown, will all nations buckle like Britain and France did in 1956. In 1980, the General Assembly convened in a “Uniting for Peace” session and passed a resolution demanding the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Soviets merely shrugged.


    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/03/can-you-bypass-a-u-n-security-council-veto.html

    I love educating PBers, especially when it comes to history.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,458
    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 27,595
    edited April 8

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    France is going to be in lockdown for some time if they want to slow COVID down.

    R=1.2 ish.


    As long as the six months we will have been in by June?
    Yes, since they entered their second national lockdown in October 2020 and haven't left it since. So they're already at six months and counting.
    France lockdown =/= UK lockdown in terms of restrictions.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 30,969

    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
    How?

    A Permanent member can be kicked out of the UN, like China [Taiwan as permanent member] was. But short of that how do they override a veto?
    I believe a supermajority in the GA can
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 39,928

    Biden: Homicide is the leading cause of African American males aged 15-34

    Jeez. That's terrible.

    Biden is such an improvement and his actions on guns is to be welcomed
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 52,426

    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
    Really? Unless matters have changed I think that is pretty difficult if not impossible. The "UN" moved against North Korea in the Korean war because Russia was boycotting UN at the time over it's refusal to recognise Maoist China, but I am not aware of any time when a Permanent Member veto has actually been outflanked.
    Yes, really. This article from 2003 is an explainer of sorts.

    It was even used against us once.

    There’s an esoteric maneuver to get around a threatened veto: invoking the obscure U.N. Resolution 377, also known as the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution. In early 1950, the United States pushed through the resolution as a means of circumventing possible Soviet vetoes. The measure states that, in the event that the Security Council cannot maintain international peace, a matter can be taken up by the General Assembly. This procedure has been used 10 times so far, most notably in 1956 to help resolve the Suez Canal crisis. Britain and France, which were occupying parts of the canal at the time, vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for their withdrawal. The United States called for an emergency “Uniting for Peace” session of the General Assembly, which passed a withdrawal resolution. (A simple majority vote is required.) Britain and France pulled out shortly after.

    Yet these non-Security Council resolutions are more symbolic pressure tactics than anything else. The council still maintains responsibility for enforcement, so naysayers among the permanent members can likely prevent the actual dispatching of troops. Nor, as history has shown, will all nations buckle like Britain and France did in 1956. In 1980, the General Assembly convened in a “Uniting for Peace” session and passed a resolution demanding the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Soviets merely shrugged.


    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/03/can-you-bypass-a-u-n-security-council-veto.html

    I love educating PBers, especially when it comes to history.
    Well that's a no, not really then. Its a glorified UNGA vote which is why the Soviets merely shrugged.

    The UNSC can send troops, that's completely different.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 27,595

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    France is going to be in lockdown for some time if they want to slow COVID down.

    R=1.2 ish.


    As long as the six months we will have been in by June?
    Some of us have been in lockdown since October.

    I know people in the North East and Leicestershire have been in lockdown for even longer than that.
    Did Leicester ever come out of lockdown? Sounds like not.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 83,578

    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
    Really? Unless matters have changed I think that is pretty difficult if not impossible. The "UN" moved against North Korea in the Korean war because Russia was boycotting UN at the time over it's refusal to recognise Maoist China, but I am not aware of any time when a Permanent Member veto has actually been outflanked.
    Yes, really. This article from 2003 is an explainer of sorts.

    It was even used against us once.

    There’s an esoteric maneuver to get around a threatened veto: invoking the obscure U.N. Resolution 377, also known as the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution. In early 1950, the United States pushed through the resolution as a means of circumventing possible Soviet vetoes. The measure states that, in the event that the Security Council cannot maintain international peace, a matter can be taken up by the General Assembly. This procedure has been used 10 times so far, most notably in 1956 to help resolve the Suez Canal crisis. Britain and France, which were occupying parts of the canal at the time, vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for their withdrawal. The United States called for an emergency “Uniting for Peace” session of the General Assembly, which passed a withdrawal resolution. (A simple majority vote is required.) Britain and France pulled out shortly after.

    Yet these non-Security Council resolutions are more symbolic pressure tactics than anything else. The council still maintains responsibility for enforcement, so naysayers among the permanent members can likely prevent the actual dispatching of troops. Nor, as history has shown, will all nations buckle like Britain and France did in 1956. In 1980, the General Assembly convened in a “Uniting for Peace” session and passed a resolution demanding the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Soviets merely shrugged.


    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/03/can-you-bypass-a-u-n-security-council-veto.html

    I love educating PBers, especially when it comes to history.
    So even if the UN GA voted against the UK veto, Boris' UK could veto the deployment of UN troops to Scotland rendering it redundant
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491
    edited April 8
    Brom said:

    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    Both figures are from the government stats.

    The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

    The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.

    Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 26,402
    kinabalu said:

    If the Holyrood election proves a total scrub for the dinosaurs (not impossible imo), perhaps a reality show can be made with them all living in a house; Salmond, Sheridan, Craig Murray, Sillars, Galloway et al, Rula Lenska coming in occasionally to feed them. George could give them tips on avoiding televised behaviour that may prevent anyone taking them seriously ever again.

    Sure to be a massive bidding war between RT and GB News for the rights.

    ☺ - Voice over Andrew Neil. Total winner.
    Gravelly burr: And now twa new mystery hoose guests are in the building!






  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 19,861

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Is it possible Salmond won't get a seat? The Scottish list system is so opaque I don't know

    The humiliation of THAT would be profound, for him

    The funniest outcome, though hardly my preferred one (a vanishingly unlikely unionist majority), is that Salmond, and only Salmond, gets a seat for Alba.

    Perched between unionists who hate him, and the SNP who will despise him for being a splitter, for 4 years. Without any backup.
    Point of order. With his arse, won’t he require two seats?
    I'd say that any space big enough for his ego will accommodate his arse quite comfortably.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    France is going to be in lockdown for some time if they want to slow COVID down.

    R=1.2 ish.


    As long as the six months we will have been in by June?
    Some of us have been in lockdown since October.

    I know people in the North East and Leicestershire have been in lockdown for even longer than that.
    Indeed. We've been incarcerated since December 20th but have got off relatively lightly compared to many others.

    Assuming it goes ahead as planned, I'm counting May 17th as the end of lockdown, even if the restrictions won't all be gone and I'm pessimistic about exactly how many months (or years) we may end up being lumbered with some of them. Twenty-one weeks, much of them stretching through what is, after all, the most depressing time of the year even under normal circumstances. I doubt that countries in Europe which have fallen back into lockdown more recently will have to put up with anything as bad as that.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,850
    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    France is going to be in lockdown for some time if they want to slow COVID down.

    R=1.2 ish.


    As long as the six months we will have been in by June?
    Given the competence of Mons. Macaron...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 19,861

    kinabalu said:

    If the Holyrood election proves a total scrub for the dinosaurs (not impossible imo), perhaps a reality show can be made with them all living in a house; Salmond, Sheridan, Craig Murray, Sillars, Galloway et al, Rula Lenska coming in occasionally to feed them. George could give them tips on avoiding televised behaviour that may prevent anyone taking them seriously ever again.

    Sure to be a massive bidding war between RT and GB News for the rights.

    ☺ - Voice over Andrew Neil. Total winner.
    Gravelly burr: And now twa new mystery hoose guests are in the building!


    Oh god. Stop it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491

    Alistair said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trot out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Even as an extremely online Scot Nat Twitter user I have never seen that said by anyone.
    You need to look harder.

    https://twitter.com/Lairdscott01/status/1354098345732689938

    https://twitter.com/SaorAlba59/status/1354053645017501697
    LOL

    a lawyer told me I have a case

    good luck with that
    Got to get as many billable hours in as possible.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,458

    Brom said:

    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    Both figures are from the government stats.

    The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

    The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.

    Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
    It seems that the 150k is very rarely used by any politicians, scientists or journalists across the globe. I haven't seen it used by the Beeb for example on the 10 o clock news.

    So seems like just a case of 'I'll pick the higher number other people aren't using because the worst case scenario suits my argument".
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 13,261
    MattW said:

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    France is going to be in lockdown for some time if they want to slow COVID down.

    R=1.2 ish.


    As long as the six months we will have been in by June?
    Given the competence of Mons. Macaron...
    I just hope to God he can shut up and let some medical experts make decisions on medical stuff.

    But I doubt it.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798

    Brom said:

    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    Both figures are from the government stats.

    The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

    The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.

    Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
    Both figures are quoted at the top of the Deaths page. As of today, 126,980 under the positive test metric, and 149,968 under the death certificate metric.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 39,928
    Rishi Sunak publishes text messages to David Cameron from last year
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491

    Brom said:

    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    Both figures are from the government stats.

    The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

    The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.

    Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
    Both figures are quoted at the top of the Deaths page. As of today, 126,980 under the positive test metric, and 149,968 under the death certificate metric.
    Poor Brom..
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 19,861
    Stocky said:



    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chameleon said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Salmond fails to win a seat so also disappears any pressure Sturgeon might feel to declare UDI if the SNP win a majority and hold a referendum and Boris as is likely ignores the result.

    Out of interest, is there any credible outcome of the Holyrood elections that isn't a big win for the Conservatives/Union in your opinion?
    If the Nationalists win a majority then Boris can continue to press home that failing to vote Tory at the 2024 UK general election means a minority Labour government with Starmer propped up by the SNP and a divisive indyref2 that Boris would keep refusing.

    If Unionists win a majority then that of course removes the chance of Sturgeon even trying for an indyref2 anyway
    Not propped up. Supported by.

    Will be doing this correction until you drop it. Let's see who blinks first.
    'In conjunction with'?
    Yes, happy with that as a compromise.

    @HYUFD ?
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 183
    MattW said:

    France is going to be in lockdown for some time if they want to slow COVID down.

    R=1.2 ish.


    They seem to have lost the ability to report on cases in the last 2 days. No updates since the lull in Easter reporting numbers. Maybe they are using a really old version of Excel and have gone over the 64K row limit.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491
    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    Both figures are from the government stats.

    The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

    The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.

    Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
    It seems that the 150k is very rarely used by any politicians, scientists or journalists across the globe. I haven't seen it used by the Beeb for example on the 10 o clock news.

    So seems like just a case of 'I'll pick the higher number other people aren't using because the worst case scenario suits my argument".
    Boris Johnson recently cited the higher figures in a press conference, as did the CMO, JVT in other press conferences.

    Whitty, Vallance, and JVT have often used the higher figure to contextualise things.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 4,537
    Remainers voted against a brexit where Britain is knee deep in apparently vital vaccines?

    Yeah right.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 5,439

    Brom said:

    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    Both figures are from the government stats.

    The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

    The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.

    Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
    Both figures are quoted at the top of the Deaths page. As of today, 126,980 under the positive test metric, and 149,968 under the death certificate metric.
    Both stats include many deaths with comorbidities though don't they? What of excess deaths?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 13,261

    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    Both figures are from the government stats.

    The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

    The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.

    Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
    It seems that the 150k is very rarely used by any politicians, scientists or journalists across the globe. I haven't seen it used by the Beeb for example on the 10 o clock news.

    So seems like just a case of 'I'll pick the higher number other people aren't using because the worst case scenario suits my argument".
    Boris Johnson recently cited the higher figures in a press conference, as did the CMO, JVT in other press conferences.

    Whitty, Vallance, and JVT have often used the higher figure to contextualise things.
    IIRC the government publicised the Excess Deaths number quite early on in the epidemic as one of the better ways to measure what was happening.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,458

    Brom said:

    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    Both figures are from the government stats.

    The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

    The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.

    Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
    Both figures are quoted at the top of the Deaths page. As of today, 126,980 under the positive test metric, and 149,968 under the death certificate metric.
    Poor Brom..
    Why poor? Clearly it's a rarely used figure that is used by a small minority who get their kicks from a high UK death rate.

    Someone still got the strops after the Liverpool result lol.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 10,316

    Biden: Homicide is the leading cause of African American males aged 15-34

    Jeez. That's terrible.

    Chicago, with a population of 2.7 million, has already had 152 homicides this year, and nearly all of them are people in that category. (The figures for London are 9.0 million and 28).
    .
    https://graphics.suntimes.com/homicides/
    https://www.murdermap.co.uk/statistics/london-murders-2021-latest-total/
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,798

    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    Both figures are from the government stats.

    The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

    The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.

    Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
    It seems that the 150k is very rarely used by any politicians, scientists or journalists across the globe. I haven't seen it used by the Beeb for example on the 10 o clock news.

    So seems like just a case of 'I'll pick the higher number other people aren't using because the worst case scenario suits my argument".
    Boris Johnson recently cited the higher figures in a press conference, as did the CMO, JVT in other press conferences.

    Whitty, Vallance, and JVT have often used the higher figure to contextualise things.
    One of the things that British officialdom can't reasonably be accused of, it would seem, is producing wildly inaccurate figures, whether by accident or design.

    Compare, if you will, to Russia, where the official Covid death toll is about 100k but the excess death count for the pandemic period is closer to half-a-million (which, on a per capita basis, would be about twice as bad as the United States.)

    It's why you've also heard more than once at the UK Government pressers that, in the long run, the best relative international measure of deaths in the pandemic is liable to come from the excess death statistics. They're the numbers least likely to be corrupted.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491
    edited April 8
    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    Both figures are from the government stats.

    The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

    The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.

    Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
    Both figures are quoted at the top of the Deaths page. As of today, 126,980 under the positive test metric, and 149,968 under the death certificate metric.
    Poor Brom..
    Why poor? Clearly it's a rarely used figure that is used by a small minority who get their kicks from a high UK death rate.

    Someone still got the strops after the Liverpool result lol.
    Poor because you wrote this.

    where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    The reality is when you were spouting your rubbish theories, it was in fact the government's own figures which they publish and highlight every day.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 26,402
    Wasn't this quite a factor in previous delays for German vaccinations? Shame that the PB German correspondent has been bullied off..

    https://twitter.com/RachLoxton/status/1380169402302263300?s=20
  • TimTTimT Posts: 3,291
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    One of the tropes the Nats trott out is that the UN will force the UK government to grant another Indyref, I keep on asking two questions which never get answered

    1) Why would the UN get involved and what powers and enforcement action does it have?

    and

    2) So why hasn't the UN enforced this principle for Catalonia?
    Plus the UK has a permanent seat on the UK security council and a veto on any UN action, the UN cannot do anything if the US, UK, France, Russia and China do not support it
    Actually the UN can override a veto deployed by a permanent member of the security council.
    Really? Unless matters have changed I think that is pretty difficult if not impossible. The "UN" moved against North Korea in the Korean war because Russia was boycotting UN at the time over it's refusal to recognise Maoist China, but I am not aware of any time when a Permanent Member veto has actually been outflanked.
    Yes, really. This article from 2003 is an explainer of sorts.

    It was even used against us once.

    There’s an esoteric maneuver to get around a threatened veto: invoking the obscure U.N. Resolution 377, also known as the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution. In early 1950, the United States pushed through the resolution as a means of circumventing possible Soviet vetoes. The measure states that, in the event that the Security Council cannot maintain international peace, a matter can be taken up by the General Assembly. This procedure has been used 10 times so far, most notably in 1956 to help resolve the Suez Canal crisis. Britain and France, which were occupying parts of the canal at the time, vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for their withdrawal. The United States called for an emergency “Uniting for Peace” session of the General Assembly, which passed a withdrawal resolution. (A simple majority vote is required.) Britain and France pulled out shortly after.

    Yet these non-Security Council resolutions are more symbolic pressure tactics than anything else. The council still maintains responsibility for enforcement, so naysayers among the permanent members can likely prevent the actual dispatching of troops. Nor, as history has shown, will all nations buckle like Britain and France did in 1956. In 1980, the General Assembly convened in a “Uniting for Peace” session and passed a resolution demanding the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Soviets merely shrugged.


    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/03/can-you-bypass-a-u-n-security-council-veto.html

    I love educating PBers, especially when it comes to history.
    So even if the UN GA voted against the UK veto, Boris' UK could veto the deployment of UN troops to Scotland rendering it redundant
    Yes, sole authority under the UN Charter for the despatch of troops lies in Chapter VII, which is the purvey of the Security Council alone, even if UNSCR377 allows UNGA to make "appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures".
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 12,663
    Brom said:

    Clearly it's a rarely used figure that is used by a small minority who get their kicks from a high UK death rate.

    Boris Johnson recently cited the higher figures in a press conference, as did the CMO, JVT in other press conferences.

    Poor Brom...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 91,491
    edited April 8

    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    Both figures are from the government stats.

    The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

    The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.

    Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
    It seems that the 150k is very rarely used by any politicians, scientists or journalists across the globe. I haven't seen it used by the Beeb for example on the 10 o clock news.

    So seems like just a case of 'I'll pick the higher number other people aren't using because the worst case scenario suits my argument".
    Boris Johnson recently cited the higher figures in a press conference, as did the CMO, JVT in other press conferences.

    Whitty, Vallance, and JVT have often used the higher figure to contextualise things.
    IIRC the government publicised the Excess Deaths number quite early on in the epidemic as one of the better ways to measure what was happening.
    Yup, the ONS have shown during the pandemic why they are the Gold Standard.

    I have a few foreign friends and colleagues and they marvel at the concept that the ONS and statistics authority have the power, which they often use, to publicly criticise and reprimand ministers, including the PM, for using misleading stats.

    It would be an alien concept in their home countries.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 2,448

    Rishi Sunak publishes text messages to David Cameron from last year

    There was an interesting article on Unherd this morning about the David Cameron imbroglio, and the slightly regrettable way in which ex-MPs move seamlessly into lobbying - https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-hypocrisy-of-david-cameron/

    What stood out for me is that Mark Oaten is now apparently a lobbyist on behalf of the International Fur Trade federation:
    https://lobbying-register.uk/individual/?i=132967&search=Mark Oaten
  • TimTTimT Posts: 3,291

    Wasn't this quite a factor in previous delays for German vaccinations? Shame that the PB German correspondent has been bullied off..

    https://twitter.com/RachLoxton/status/1380169402302263300?s=20

    I thought kamski objected to being called German. A Brit in Germany, I believe. ;)
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 4,537
    Andy_JS said:

    Biden: Homicide is the leading cause of African American males aged 15-34

    Jeez. That's terrible.

    Chicago, with a population of 2.7 million, has already had 152 homicides this year, and nearly all of them are people in that category. (The figures for London are 9.0 million and 28).
    .
    https://graphics.suntimes.com/homicides/
    https://www.murdermap.co.uk/statistics/london-murders-2021-latest-total/
    I wonder how many of those homicides take place in districts that have been controlled by the democrats for half a century or more....



  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 13,261

    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    Both figures are from the government stats.

    The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

    The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.

    Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
    It seems that the 150k is very rarely used by any politicians, scientists or journalists across the globe. I haven't seen it used by the Beeb for example on the 10 o clock news.

    So seems like just a case of 'I'll pick the higher number other people aren't using because the worst case scenario suits my argument".
    Boris Johnson recently cited the higher figures in a press conference, as did the CMO, JVT in other press conferences.

    Whitty, Vallance, and JVT have often used the higher figure to contextualise things.
    One of the things that British officialdom can't reasonably be accused of, it would seem, is producing wildly inaccurate figures, whether by accident or design.

    Compare, if you will, to Russia, where the official Covid death toll is about 100k but the excess death count for the pandemic period is closer to half-a-million (which, on a per capita basis, would be about twice as bad as the United States.)

    It's why you've also heard more than once at the UK Government pressers that, in the long run, the best relative international measure of deaths in the pandemic is liable to come from the excess death statistics. They're the numbers least likely to be corrupted.
    Not to mention stuff like Florida...
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,458

    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?

    Both figures are from the government stats.

    The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

    The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.

    Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
    It seems that the 150k is very rarely used by any politicians, scientists or journalists across the globe. I haven't seen it used by the Beeb for example on the 10 o clock news.

    So seems like just a case of 'I'll pick the higher number other people aren't using because the worst case scenario suits my argument".
    Boris Johnson recently cited the higher figures in a press conference, as did the CMO, JVT in other press conferences.

    Whitty, Vallance, and JVT have often used the higher figure to contextualise things.
    How often is often? Rarely I'd say compared to the 126k. Reuters, worldometers, our world in data, BBC use the lower figure. Boris, JVT, Whitty consistantly refer to the 28 days figure in the pressers. And if so it makes you wonder why the same folk using "150,000k dead" for their arguments don't use the higher figure when referring to other nations.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,458
    Scott_xP said:

    Brom said:

    Clearly it's a rarely used figure that is used by a small minority who get their kicks from a high UK death rate.

    Boris Johnson recently cited the higher figures in a press conference, as did the CMO, JVT in other press conferences.

    Poor Brom...
    I won't take any sympathy from a crazy guy but thanks all the same. Hope the People's Vote campaign is going well anyway.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,427
  • CookieCookie Posts: 2,448
    So what's the story here - does Sputnik not work as well as claimed?
    Is this the vaccine Germany is procuring lots of?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,599
    Scott_xP said:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb1DC0akmFE

    Classic.

    Though Jim Sillars is the only prominent proponent I know of outside the EU/outside the UK, which IMO is the only intellectually coherent form of Sindy.
Sign In or Register to comment.