The way cases are going up (and given the argument against opening up seems to be: "Long covid!", so cases are important), then fettling around the edges are irrelevant. If you are worried about cases, then we need to lock down now, hard. Any opening up goes directly against the aim of decreasing cases.
It does seem like some people just want to bash the government - they want to say we can open up (because the public like that), but also say we need to worry about cases - so they can bash the government. The compromise is to fettle around the edges. Which does f'all to reduce cases.
Which is the mess RP got into (in my view, at least) the other day.
I’m in favour of the incremental approach. Their previous policy. Retaining masks on public transport could have real economic benefits if public confidence is as low as it appears.
Do you really fancy using the tube right now? I don’t. Masks would help.
Ah, so you're in the fettling-around-the-edges camp. Which will do the square-root of fuck-all to reduce cases.
Now: if you're being really brave, you'd suggest not playing the football on TV, to stop all the stupidity that pointless event is causing... (*)
(*) Go England!
I’m in the get the economy moving camp, which means retaining confidence.
And you want to retain confidence by the false theatre of making people put on masks even if they're double-vaccinated and even though masks are tinkering around the edges?
And even though people can buy FFP3 masks if they're that concerned.
My view recently has been that if it's not safe to do something without a mask then it probably isn't safe to do it with a mask, and so I will avoid doing it wherever possible. Once I'm vaccinated I'm going to be as safe as I am ever going to be, and if it's still not safe enough to go places without wearing a mask then it isn't safe enough.
Continued insistence on mask-wearing will make me feel less safe, and I will avoid places that insist on them as much as possible.
Things must go back to the way they were before Covid. The government needs to persuade people to do so.
Why? Things can be better. After WW2 thank goodness they didn’t return to the 1930s.
Wearing facemasks forever isn't my idea of things being better.
Commuting 3.5hrs 5/7 on shitty trains, shelling out for expensive caffeine isn’t better either.
well you really dont have to do that if you dont want to do you? i personally like the interaction on public transport . The frustration occasionally of it makes life what it is. It is certainly better than being stuck in your house all day looking at a screen for a living imo
Perhaps there’s something better. Choice?
Anyway my firm has pocketed the dividend of less office space. So compulsory daily commuting is less of a thing. The Whistlestop shop in Victoria and commercial landlords will suffer commercially.
Plenty of other businesses will prosper, become more profitable and find holes in the market.
There’s a big opportunity for a commercial landlord to convert an office block into a cheap hotel in the middle of the City, to accommodate those coming in for their two or three days a week in the office, who need nothing more than somewhere to lay their head down for a few hours.
Yes. The big commercial landlords of London will be fine. It’s the small, decent businesses I worry about. I worry less about those charging massive markups for junk food and sugar water.
Doctors suspect links between Covid-19 and erectile dysfunction, with anecdotal accounts suggesting that growing numbers of men afflicted by the virus are complaining about the condition.
Medics want more studies to explore a suspected correlation between men who contracted the virus and went on to develop pneumonia, which can trigger inflammation of the blood vessels, and the condition. Another hypothesis is that Covid-19 may damage the Leydig cells that produce testosterone.
Dr Ryan Berglund, a urologist at the Cleveland Clinic, told the Los Angeles Times that erectile dysfunction could occur from Covid-19 in a similar way to inflammation of the heart muscle, or myocarditis. “It’s the blood vessels themselves that can become inflamed, which could cause an obstructive phenomenon and negatively impact the ability to get erections,” he said.
Aha - the hard truth is things have gone a bit flabby to coin a phrase - who'd have thought a little prick in the arm could portend such an effect elsewhere..
Doctors suspect links between Covid-19 and erectile dysfunction, with anecdotal accounts suggesting that growing numbers of men afflicted by the virus are complaining about the condition.
Medics want more studies to explore a suspected correlation between men who contracted the virus and went on to develop pneumonia, which can trigger inflammation of the blood vessels, and the condition. Another hypothesis is that Covid-19 may damage the Leydig cells that produce testosterone.
Dr Ryan Berglund, a urologist at the Cleveland Clinic, told the Los Angeles Times that erectile dysfunction could occur from Covid-19 in a similar way to inflammation of the heart muscle, or myocarditis. “It’s the blood vessels themselves that can become inflamed, which could cause an obstructive phenomenon and negatively impact the ability to get erections,” he said.
Aha - the hard truth is things have gone a bit flabby to coin a phrase - who'd have thought a little prick in the arm could portend such an effect elsewhere..
Things must go back to the way they were before Covid. The government needs to persuade people to do so.
It is the government's fault that people are thinking like they are
Johnson & Co themselves framed the debate as the 'safety' of lockdown versus the 'risk' of freedom. They have done that for a year and a half.
Now of course with the debt ballooning and the economy nowhere near full speed, the government are forced to admit this that was a completely false choice.
Far from being 'safe' , long-term restrictions on freedom and businesses are ruinous and utterly reckless gamble with any nation's finance.
The thing is they can hardly point this out when they have been lying through their teeth to the electorate about the real choices we face for f8cking ever.
Codswallop.
It's not the debt or the economy that is the big difference it is that the vaccines have changed things. The vaccines have worked and thanks to that we are now unlocking.
They haven't lied to anyone. The lockdown was to keep people safe until the vaccines were rolled out, well now it's Mission Accomplished.
Well quite.
The vaccines have broken the link between case rates and hospitalisations, and now that we’ve offered vaccines to everyone, there’s no need to “protect the NHS” any more - which let us not forget, resulted in the most draconian restrictions imposed since WWII.
Doctors suspect links between Covid-19 and erectile dysfunction, with anecdotal accounts suggesting that growing numbers of men afflicted by the virus are complaining about the condition.
Medics want more studies to explore a suspected correlation between men who contracted the virus and went on to develop pneumonia, which can trigger inflammation of the blood vessels, and the condition. Another hypothesis is that Covid-19 may damage the Leydig cells that produce testosterone.
Dr Ryan Berglund, a urologist at the Cleveland Clinic, told the Los Angeles Times that erectile dysfunction could occur from Covid-19 in a similar way to inflammation of the heart muscle, or myocarditis. “It’s the blood vessels themselves that can become inflamed, which could cause an obstructive phenomenon and negatively impact the ability to get erections,” he said.
Pfizer makes Viagra, the treatment for erectile dysfunction caused by Covid. Pfizer makes the world's best selling CV19 vaccine that they somehow manged to invent in just a day.
Given Covid seems almost entirely designed to boost Pfizer's profits, are we really sure it was a Chinese lab it escaped from?
Things must go back to the way they were before Covid. The government needs to persuade people to do so.
It is the government's fault that people are thinking like they are
Johnson & Co themselves framed the debate as the 'safety' of lockdown versus the 'risk' of freedom. They have done that for a year and a half.
Now of course with the debt ballooning and the economy nowhere near full speed, the government are forced to admit this that was a completely false choice.
Far from being 'safe' , long-term restrictions on freedom and businesses are ruinous and utterly reckless gamble with any nation's finance.
The thing is they can hardly point this out when they have been lying through their teeth to the electorate about the real choices we face for f8cking ever.
Codswallop.
It's not the debt or the economy that is the big difference it is that the vaccines have changed things. The vaccines have worked and thanks to that we are now unlocking.
They haven't lied to anyone. The lockdown was to keep people safe until the vaccines were rolled out, well now it's Mission Accomplished.
The vaccines do not explain why 25% of voters want all nightclubs outlawed for ever under any circumstances.
Do you remember contrarian that a few months ago I was saying that vaccines would bring an end to lockdown and you were saying that SAGE and others would never give up control? That vaccines weren't the path to freedom?
Now you're acting like Nothing Has Changed. Funny that.
Things must go back to the way they were before Covid. The government needs to persuade people to do so.
It is the government's fault that people are thinking like they are
Johnson & Co themselves framed the debate as the 'safety' of lockdown versus the 'risk' of freedom. They have done that for a year and a half.
Now of course with the debt ballooning and the economy nowhere near full speed, the government are forced to admit this that was a completely false choice.
Far from being 'safe' , long-term restrictions on freedom and businesses are ruinous and utterly reckless gamble with any nation's finance.
The thing is they can hardly point this out when they have been lying through their teeth to the electorate about the real choices we face for f8cking ever.
Codswallop.
It's not the debt or the economy that is the big difference it is that the vaccines have changed things. The vaccines have worked and thanks to that we are now unlocking.
They haven't lied to anyone. The lockdown was to keep people safe until the vaccines were rolled out, well now it's Mission Accomplished.
The vaccines do not explain why 25% of voters want all nightclubs outlawed for ever under any circumstances.
They really don't.
Some people respond to opinion polls with batshit crazy answers.
And probably there'd be a proportion who would have said that pre Covid too.
Things must go back to the way they were before Covid. The government needs to persuade people to do so.
It is the government's fault that people are thinking like they are
Johnson & Co themselves framed the debate as the 'safety' of lockdown versus the 'risk' of freedom. They have done that for a year and a half.
Now of course with the debt ballooning and the economy nowhere near full speed, the government are forced to admit this that was a completely false choice.
Far from being 'safe' , long-term restrictions on freedom and businesses are ruinous and utterly reckless gamble with any nation's finance.
The thing is they can hardly point this out when they have been lying through their teeth to the electorate about the real choices we face for f8cking ever.
Codswallop.
It's not the debt or the economy that is the big difference it is that the vaccines have changed things. The vaccines have worked and thanks to that we are now unlocking.
They haven't lied to anyone. The lockdown was to keep people safe until the vaccines were rolled out, well now it's Mission Accomplished.
The vaccines do not explain why 25% of voters want all nightclubs outlawed for ever under any circumstances.
They really don't.
Some people respond to opinion polls with batshit crazy answers.
And probably there'd be a proportion who would have said that pre Covid too.
The way cases are going up (and given the argument against opening up seems to be: "Long covid!", so cases are important), then fettling around the edges are irrelevant. If you are worried about cases, then we need to lock down now, hard. Any opening up goes directly against the aim of decreasing cases.
It does seem like some people just want to bash the government - they want to say we can open up (because the public like that), but also say we need to worry about cases - so they can bash the government. The compromise is to fettle around the edges. Which does f'all to reduce cases.
Which is the mess RP got into (in my view, at least) the other day.
I’m in favour of the incremental approach. Their previous policy. Retaining masks on public transport could have real economic benefits if public confidence is as low as it appears.
Do you really fancy using the tube right now? I don’t. Masks would help.
Ah, so you're in the fettling-around-the-edges camp. Which will do the square-root of fuck-all to reduce cases.
Now: if you're being really brave, you'd suggest not playing the football on TV, to stop all the stupidity that pointless event is causing... (*)
(*) Go England!
I’m in the get the economy moving camp, which means retaining confidence.
And you want to retain confidence by the false theatre of making people put on masks even if they're double-vaccinated and even though masks are tinkering around the edges?
And even though people can buy FFP3 masks if they're that concerned.
If your goal is to get the public out because it’s now safe it is plain dumb to remove one of the symbols of personal safety.
It would cost absolutely nothing to retain masks on the tube and other enclosed environments. It has to be compulsory. It’s not the people that wear them voluntarily that are the concern.
This government has foolishly created incentives for many to stay at home.
Complete bollocks.
Others wearing masks is not a symbol of personal safety, if it was the pandemic would have been over a year ago. Vaccinations are what leads to personal safety.
If you want to be safe then get your jab. The rest of the crap is irrelevant and needs to go.
It's a symbol of doing your bit and trying to protect others. I am fully aware that masks won't protect me, but they might protect others. There is evidence that masks do help prevent spread to others, obviously not as much as vaccines but it all adds up and helps.
I have been fully vaccinated since March 11th, but others might not be. Others might be for example immunosuppressed or have an underlying condition which means they can't have the vaccine or it doesn't work as well.
In my view it would be incredibly selfish of me to go on a bus and not wear a mask. But others may feel differently, it's up to each individual and their own conscience.
When do we stop wearing masks in enclosed areas in your view?
Things must go back to the way they were before Covid. The government needs to persuade people to do so.
No chance of that.
One needs to make a distinction between anti-Covid measures and voluntary lifestyle changes. A lot of people find they are happier shopping if everyone's wearing masks, as I believe (might be wrong?) has been the norm in Japanese cities for ages. Partly all the stuff about "we should treat it like flu" has backfired - a lot of people think that taking precautions against flu makes sense, who needs strangers sneezing over you? So we could end up treating flu like Covid instead of the other way round.
I don't favour that, personally. But I don't mind wearing a mask on crowded trains and in shops, and maybe that'll become the accepted norm, enforced by shops ("we only have masked customers") and individual preference ("I shop where..."). Societies change and there's nothing inherently evil about a mask except that we've not been used to them..
Doctors suspect links between Covid-19 and erectile dysfunction, with anecdotal accounts suggesting that growing numbers of men afflicted by the virus are complaining about the condition.
Medics want more studies to explore a suspected correlation between men who contracted the virus and went on to develop pneumonia, which can trigger inflammation of the blood vessels, and the condition. Another hypothesis is that Covid-19 may damage the Leydig cells that produce testosterone.
Dr Ryan Berglund, a urologist at the Cleveland Clinic, told the Los Angeles Times that erectile dysfunction could occur from Covid-19 in a similar way to inflammation of the heart muscle, or myocarditis. “It’s the blood vessels themselves that can become inflamed, which could cause an obstructive phenomenon and negatively impact the ability to get erections,” he said.
Pfizer makes Viagra, the treatment for erectile dysfunction caused by Covid. Pfizer makes the world's best selling CV19 vaccine that they somehow manged to invent in just a day.
Given Covid seems almost entirely designed to boost Pfizer's profits, are we really sure it was a Chinese lab it escaped from?
I can heartily recommend Pfizer products, I was jabbed with their Covid-19 vaccine and it was great.
I only use Viagra to stop myself rolling out of bed, works brilliantly.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
First trip to London Zone 1 for me and my mum since February 27th 2020!
Saw Liverpool Street station, and the Barbican. Not too many people about, but not exactly "28 Days Later" either! Got back to Ilford by 4pm just as the rush hour was building!
Broadgate building opposite Liverpool Street finally finished, also saw a fair number of new Class 720 trains and a Continental style Class 745. Crossrail entrance just outside Broadgate seems all but complete, but shuttered up.
Felt genuinely weird seeing places I'd been to so many times in the past, but not for 16 months!
Do you remember contrarian that a few months ago I was saying that vaccines would bring an end to lockdown and you were saying that SAGE and others would never give up control? That vaccines weren't the path to freedom?
Now you're acting like Nothing Has Changed. Funny that.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
I'd say quite the opposite.
I think most English people for a long time, like most people around the globe, have considered the names England, Britain and UK to be pretty interchangeable.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
Things must go back to the way they were before Covid. The government needs to persuade people to do so.
No chance of that.
One needs to make a distinction between anti-Covid measures and voluntary lifestyle changes. A lot of people find they are happier shopping if everyone's wearing masks, as I believe (might be wrong?) has been the norm in Japanese cities for ages. Partly all the stuff about "we should treat it like flu" has backfired - a lot of people think that taking precautions against flu makes sense, who needs strangers sneezing over you? So we could end up treating flu like Covid instead of the other way round.
I don't favour that, personally. But I don't mind wearing a mask on crowded trains and in shops, and maybe that'll become the accepted norm, enforced by shops ("we only have masked customers") and individual preference ("I shop where..."). Societies change and there's nothing inherently evil about a mask except that we've not been used to them..
I have relatively minor sensory issues due to mild Autistic Spectrum Disorder. Masks are something that I find very hard to tolerate as a result, and they produce in me a panicky feeling of being trapped. I also find it hard to ignore the logical chain of reasoning that goes: masks are required because wearing them makes other people safe -> other people are not wearing their mask properly -> I am at peril from other people. Okay, you might say, we can exempt you from wearing a mask - but then I have the awful social anxiety of being the only person in an enclosed area not wearing a mask, worrying about what people are thinking and saying about me.
Please God make the masks go away when the emergency is over.
First trip to London Zone 1 for me and my mum since February 27th 2020!
Saw Liverpool Street station, and the Barbican. Not too many people about, but not exactly "28 Days Later" either! Got back to Ilford by 4pm just as the rush hour was building!
Broadgate building opposite Liverpool Street finally finished, also saw a fair number of new Class 720 trains and a Continental style Class 745. Crossrail entrance just outside Broadgate seems all but complete, but shuttered up.
Felt genuinely weird seeing places I'd been to so many times in the past, but not for 16 months!
Sixteen months.
That's the thing. You were out there for sixteen months. What happened was, you had drifted right through the core systems, and it's really just blind luck that a deep salvage team found you when they did. It's one in a thousand, really. I think you're damn lucky to be alive, kiddo. You could be floating out there forever.
The way cases are going up (and given the argument against opening up seems to be: "Long covid!", so cases are important), then fettling around the edges are irrelevant. If you are worried about cases, then we need to lock down now, hard. Any opening up goes directly against the aim of decreasing cases.
It does seem like some people just want to bash the government - they want to say we can open up (because the public like that), but also say we need to worry about cases - so they can bash the government. The compromise is to fettle around the edges. Which does f'all to reduce cases.
Which is the mess RP got into (in my view, at least) the other day.
I’m in favour of the incremental approach. Their previous policy. Retaining masks on public transport could have real economic benefits if public confidence is as low as it appears.
Do you really fancy using the tube right now? I don’t. Masks would help.
Ah, so you're in the fettling-around-the-edges camp. Which will do the square-root of fuck-all to reduce cases.
Now: if you're being really brave, you'd suggest not playing the football on TV, to stop all the stupidity that pointless event is causing... (*)
(*) Go England!
I’m in the get the economy moving camp, which means retaining confidence.
And you want to retain confidence by the false theatre of making people put on masks even if they're double-vaccinated and even though masks are tinkering around the edges?
And even though people can buy FFP3 masks if they're that concerned.
My view recently has been that if it's not safe to do something without a mask then it probably isn't safe to do it with a mask, and so I will avoid doing it wherever possible. Once I'm vaccinated I'm going to be as safe as I am ever going to be, and if it's still not safe enough to go places without wearing a mask then it isn't safe enough.
Continued insistence on mask-wearing will make me feel less safe, and I will avoid places that insist on them as much as possible.
I agree.
Someone downthread said that no-one had tried to justify why masks should be dropped. So I'll have a go in three hits. I admit not many have justified removal of mask mandates - and I think that is because, like banning peanuts from certain environments like schools where one child is allergic, it is seen as 'low cost' or 'not a huge deal'.
1) Philosophical. In my view that is not a sensible or desirable policy for a whole society to adapt permanently to for a transient event, nor is it justified to protect a tiny minority of immuno-supressed individuals who live with the chance of catching the flu every-day, anyway. Since the chance of medical collapse has gone, the analogy of masks to protect the vulnerable would be banning peanuts across the country because some are allergic. imposing restrictions on the many in the small chance that it might prevent the odd infection for a tiny minority of unvaccinated individuals is unwieldy.
2) Scientific and epidemiological. For a start, the cloth I wear over my face does little to nothing to stop any spread. It isn't properly fitted, I don't replace it frequently enough. I have seen much worse than my own. So they largely don't work in the real world. Secondly, we have a vaccine wall which will protect us far more. A pandemic exit wave will burn out in population whether vaccinated or not; we've done wonders, we need to have confidence in science
3) Socio-political. Masks to me are a symbol of fear, concern, or general alertness - and I am sure that I am not alone. The crisis is over. I don't want people covering to the whims of authority forever and a day. Fear makes society far too easy to mould by those who govern a fearful society is not a free society. It is suboptimal.
To conclude; I think the problem is that people have come to see any covid as terrible, and therefore support any measures to supress it, no matter how onerous. This is foolish. We will not be rid of it. Living with it is the only way through.
Things must go back to the way they were before Covid. The government needs to persuade people to do so.
No chance of that.
One needs to make a distinction between anti-Covid measures and voluntary lifestyle changes. A lot of people find they are happier shopping if everyone's wearing masks, as I believe (might be wrong?) has been the norm in Japanese cities for ages. Partly all the stuff about "we should treat it like flu" has backfired - a lot of people think that taking precautions against flu makes sense, who needs strangers sneezing over you? So we could end up treating flu like Covid instead of the other way round.
I don't favour that, personally. But I don't mind wearing a mask on crowded trains and in shops, and maybe that'll become the accepted norm, enforced by shops ("we only have masked customers") and individual preference ("I shop where..."). Societies change and there's nothing inherently evil about a mask except that we've not been used to them..
How far is the application/enforcement of permanent public health measures to be taken? Why stop at compulsory masking in crowded spaces forever?
The health of the NHS and the public finances as well as the nation would be transformed if obese people were sent to concentration camps and starved thin.
Do you remember contrarian that a few months ago I was saying that vaccines would bring an end to lockdown and you were saying that SAGE and others would never give up control? That vaccines weren't the path to freedom?
Now you're acting like Nothing Has Changed. Funny that.
I'm not even sure vaccines ever were or are entirely the path to freedom.
The path to freedom comes partly from the tories late realisation of the terrible situation they were drifting into. A situation they were partly alerted to by their own voters no-showing in the South in May and last month.
Do you remember contrarian that a few months ago I was saying that vaccines would bring an end to lockdown and you were saying that SAGE and others would never give up control? That vaccines weren't the path to freedom?
Now you're acting like Nothing Has Changed. Funny that.
I'm not even sure vaccines ever were or are entirely the path to freedom.
The path to freedom comes partly from the tories late realisation of the terrible situation they were drifting into. A situation they were partly alerted to by their own voters no-showing in the South in May and last month.
Things must go back to the way they were before Covid. The government needs to persuade people to do so.
Why? Things can be better. After WW2 thank goodness they didn’t return to the 1930s.
Wearing facemasks forever isn't my idea of things being better.
Commuting 3.5hrs 5/7 on shitty trains, shelling out for expensive caffeine isn’t better either.
well you really dont have to do that if you dont want to do you? i personally like the interaction on public transport . The frustration occasionally of it makes life what it is. It is certainly better than being stuck in your house all day looking at a screen for a living imo
Perhaps there’s something better. Choice?
Anyway my firm has pocketed the dividend of less office space. So compulsory daily commuting is less of a thing. The Whistlestop shop in Victoria and commercial landlords will suffer commercially.
Plenty of other businesses will prosper, become more profitable and find holes in the market.
There’s a big opportunity for a commercial landlord to convert an office block into a cheap hotel in the middle of the City, to accommodate those coming in for their two or three days a week in the office, who need nothing more than somewhere to lay their head down for a few hours.
Yes. The big commercial landlords of London will be fine. It’s the small, decent businesses I worry about. I worry less about those charging massive markups for junk food and sugar water.
Indeed. I think we’ve probably seen a decade’s worth of change in the retail sector, and two recessions’ worth of business failures. While most hospitality will quickly get back to something approaching normal, a lot of retail has moved online and isn’t coming back.
There will be permanent changes in commuting patterns though, which will affect different areas in different ways. There will be opportunities for coffee shops and pubs in small towns and villages, as these same opportunities disappear in the larger cities.
If I had a small town or residential area pub, I’d be investing right now in power sockets and decent wifi, and be looking at £20 ‘day worker’ packages which include a sandwich and a pint, and free coffee refills. There’s always opportunities.
On a train. Coming from a bar at the contact trace of which I waved my switched off phone.
And not wearing a mask.
Feels fine.
But maybe not for all those near you. I’m alright jack.
Those near him should be vaccinated or otherwise as safe as is reasonably possible.
If they're not they should probably shield for a few weeks until the last of this burns out.
It is concerning how many people got (enthusiastically) fully vaccinated but now seem to believe it offers them little protection. I blame Andrew Marr.
And all the scientists who dogmatically refuse to accept that we are in a different world today than last September, and just constantly parrot “we’re making all the same mistakes again...
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
I don't know if it's so sad - full commitment to the union. I think this sort of thing is also true for a few Europeans, and those that were also British found it quite hard to adjust to Brexit.
Whatever the merits of Scottish independence it upsets the long-held thoughts of many.
I tend to think enormously well of the people that simply see us in these unions as indivisible. However that doesn't mean that these arrangements can't or shouldn't change.
The way cases are going up (and given the argument against opening up seems to be: "Long covid!", so cases are important), then fettling around the edges are irrelevant. If you are worried about cases, then we need to lock down now, hard. Any opening up goes directly against the aim of decreasing cases.
It does seem like some people just want to bash the government - they want to say we can open up (because the public like that), but also say we need to worry about cases - so they can bash the government. The compromise is to fettle around the edges. Which does f'all to reduce cases.
Which is the mess RP got into (in my view, at least) the other day.
I’m in favour of the incremental approach. Their previous policy. Retaining masks on public transport could have real economic benefits if public confidence is as low as it appears.
Do you really fancy using the tube right now? I don’t. Masks would help.
Ah, so you're in the fettling-around-the-edges camp. Which will do the square-root of fuck-all to reduce cases.
Now: if you're being really brave, you'd suggest not playing the football on TV, to stop all the stupidity that pointless event is causing... (*)
(*) Go England!
I’m in the get the economy moving camp, which means retaining confidence.
And you want to retain confidence by the false theatre of making people put on masks even if they're double-vaccinated and even though masks are tinkering around the edges?
And even though people can buy FFP3 masks if they're that concerned.
If your goal is to get the public out because it’s now safe it is plain dumb to remove one of the symbols of personal safety.
It would cost absolutely nothing to retain masks on the tube and other enclosed environments. It has to be compulsory. It’s not the people that wear them voluntarily that are the concern.
This government has foolishly created incentives for many to stay at home.
No i believe public transport usage will be higher when masks go. I certianly have been avoiding it as i dont want to wear a mask. The one time I had to go on a train (last month) nobody bothered to wear one on the late night train back from birmingham - ie when they thought nobody would tell them off
I'm the same - my rationale is that if something is sufficiently risky that a mask is mandatory, then I'm not doing it unless I absolutely have to. I've been on the train twice, off peak in empty carriages. No way am I commuting in the rush hour every day until it's deemed safe enough not to wear a mask. Tube - forget it. So if Boris wants me back in the office, then masks have to be voluntary. (And I have decided it's polite to wear a mask when the train is crowded, for flu/colds as well as Covid, so I will do that going forwards)
I'm the same with shopping, haven't done any except for essentials since last March. I have quite a large shopping list waiting for when it can be a pleasant experience again.
Do you remember contrarian that a few months ago I was saying that vaccines would bring an end to lockdown and you were saying that SAGE and others would never give up control? That vaccines weren't the path to freedom?
Now you're acting like Nothing Has Changed. Funny that.
I'm not even sure vaccines ever were or are entirely the path to freedom.
The path to freedom comes partly from the tories late realisation of the terrible situation they were drifting into. A situation they were partly alerted to by their own voters no-showing in the South in May and last month.
Oh give over! I was right and you were wrong. The vaccines broken the back of the emergency and that's that it's over now.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
On a train. Coming from a bar at the contact trace of which I waved my switched off phone.
And not wearing a mask.
Feels fine.
But maybe not for all those near you. I’m alright jack.
Those near him should be vaccinated or otherwise as safe as is reasonably possible.
If they're not they should probably shield for a few weeks until the last of this burns out.
It is concerning how many people got (enthusiastically) fully vaccinated but now seem to believe it offers them little protection. I blame Andrew Marr.
And all the scientists who dogmatically refuse to accept that we are in a different world today than last September, and just constantly parrot “we’re making all the same mistakes again...
I believe a whole string of anecdotes here and elsewhere to the effect that neither previous infection nor double vacc provides as much protection against delta as it provides against previous known variants.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
If you want to avoid football go to the Scottish press. The one part of European media not talking about. Bit sad really. Wish nationalism didn’t have to get in the way.
The Scottish press is largely Unionist. If you’re a Unionist you should be applauding their muting of the 3 Lions volume.
Thankfully the BBC has no such capability.
The BBC is currently doing an outstanding job. I’ve rarely seen so many irritated posts in social media. The penny has dropped.
That is a seriously fucked up set of survey results.
So much for freedom loving. That 19% for the curfew and 26% for closing app casinos and clubs forever are the most worrying to me. That such a large number of people would like a 10pm curfew forever is a real mind fuck and the second one feels like old farts telling young people they aren't allowed to ever have fun.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
That is a seriously fucked up set of survey results.
So much for freedom loving. That 19% for the curfew and 26% for closing app casinos and clubs forever are the most worrying to me. That such a large number of people would like a 10pm curfew forever is a real mind fuck and the second one feels like old farts telling young people they aren't allowed to ever have fun.
That seems to be wrong
"Interestingly, while COVID is still seen as a risk support for restrictions tends to be stronger among older age groups, but that age difference disappears when we ask about support for restrictions remaining in place permanently (and if anything, older groups actually become more opposed)." Ipsos own commentary
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
Someone should let them know that genocide is far easier to achieve in locked down, compliant and fearful societies.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
Someone should let them know that genocide is far easier to achieve in locked down, compliant and fearful societies.
Do give over. That's true if you have to collect people up and herd them onto trains. If your genocide model is atom bombs it doesn't matter a toss how compliant and fearful they are, and if it's transmissible disease you positively want them out and about enjoying each others' company. So much of this commentary sounds like a bad teenage essay on 1984.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
You know the perspex screens in restaurants, offices, etc? Turns out they aren't any good. In fact they're making things worse, according to this article.
"Perspex screens scrapped: Ministers are also being advised that those perspex screens that have appeared in some offices and restaurants are unlikely to have any benefit in terms of preventing transmission. Problems include them not being positioned correctly, with the possibility that they actually increase the risk of transmission by blocking airflow. Therefore there is clear guidance to ministers that these perspex screens should be scrapped."
That is a seriously fucked up set of survey results.
So much for freedom loving. That 19% for the curfew and 26% for closing app casinos and clubs forever are the most worrying to me. That such a large number of people would like a 10pm curfew forever is a real mind fuck and the second one feels like old farts telling young people they aren't allowed to ever have fun.
But if the last few years have told us anything, it's that there's an election-winning chunk of the population who really don't like other people having freedoms.
I mean, a lot of Professor Matthew Goodwin's use of poll data is garbage, but his theory that a lot of voters want nanny state, as long as nanny is strict, is hard to ignore. (Though whenever I hear the words "Professor Matthew Goodwin", the mental image that I get is "Professor Jimmy Edwards". Not sure why.)
That is a seriously fucked up set of survey results.
So much for freedom loving. That 19% for the curfew and 26% for closing app casinos and clubs forever are the most worrying to me. That such a large number of people would like a 10pm curfew forever is a real mind fuck and the second one feels like old farts telling young people they aren't allowed to ever have fun.
Thinking about it I wonder if there's an element there of religious people (Muslim or Christian) and similar viewing casinos, clubs etc as immoral and thinking they should be closed and answering accordingly under cover of a Covid question?
That is a seriously fucked up set of survey results.
So much for freedom loving. That 19% for the curfew and 26% for closing app casinos and clubs forever are the most worrying to me. That such a large number of people would like a 10pm curfew forever is a real mind fuck and the second one feels like old farts telling young people they aren't allowed to ever have fun.
A lot of the old farts must be people who were having a good time in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s when they were young, but now they want to stop other people doing the same.
That is a seriously fucked up set of survey results.
So much for freedom loving. That 19% for the curfew and 26% for closing app casinos and clubs forever are the most worrying to me. That such a large number of people would like a 10pm curfew forever is a real mind fuck and the second one feels like old farts telling young people they aren't allowed to ever have fun.
Thinking about it I wonder if there's an element there of religious people (Muslim or Christian) viewing casinos, clubs etc as immoral and thinking they should be closed and answering accordingly under cover of a Covid question?
In my youth I used to dread the suggestion of going on to a club, on the basis that by pub throwing out time I'd be drunk enough to be ready for bed, and wholly opposed to buying more drinks at nightclub prices.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
Someone should let them know that genocide is far easier to achieve in locked down, compliant and fearful societies.
Do give over. That's true if you have to collect people up and herd them onto trains. If your genocide model is atom bombs it doesn't matter a toss how compliant and fearful they are, and if it's transmissible disease you positively want them out and about enjoying each others' company. So much of this commentary sounds like a bad teenage essay on 1984.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
Someone should let them know that genocide is far easier to achieve in locked down, compliant and fearful societies.
Do give over. That's true if you have to collect people up and herd them onto trains. If your genocide model is atom bombs it doesn't matter a toss how compliant and fearful they are, and if it's transmissible disease you positively want them out and about enjoying each others' company. So much of this commentary sounds like a bad teenage essay on 1984.
Oh yeah? What’s your definition of “genocide”?
The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. What's yours?
That is a seriously fucked up set of survey results.
So much for freedom loving. That 19% for the curfew and 26% for closing app casinos and clubs forever are the most worrying to me. That such a large number of people would like a 10pm curfew forever is a real mind fuck and the second one feels like old farts telling young people they aren't allowed to ever have fun.
A lot of the old farts must be people who were having a good time in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s when they were young, but now they want to stop other people doing the same.
Third time of posting:
"Interestingly, while COVID is still seen as a risk support for restrictions tends to be stronger among older age groups, but that age difference disappears when we ask about support for restrictions remaining in place permanently (and if anything, older groups actually become more opposed)." Ipsos own commentary
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
In March 2020 pursuing herd immunity that in some modelling would kill 250,000 people was deemed “madness”. (Such a policy wasn’t even pushed once the numbers became accepted). In June 2021 when, there is no respectable model, even at extremes, that predicts that, it is genocide.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
I'd say quite the opposite.
I think most English people for a long time, like most people around the globe, have considered the names England, Britain and UK to be pretty interchangeable.
Maybe it's time to just abolish Scotland altogether? Why not just make the County of Lanark just another English county?
The thing that the government got wrong was about 18 months ago, they decided to tell people that a virus which is fairly serious in old people and almost entirely harmless in young people was the new black death.
Now, all the gullible people who believe whatever rubbish the government/media want to tell them are scared rigid of it, despite vaccines making it pretty much a non-issue for the old as well.
If Covid had had a hospitalisation profile when it arrived like it has now, you'd be lucky if it generated a paragraph on page 15 of The Times, and normal life would be continuing.
You know the perspex screens in restaurants, offices, etc? Turns out they aren't any good. In fact they're making things worse, according to this article.
"Perspex screens scrapped: Ministers are also being advised that those perspex screens that have appeared in some offices and restaurants are unlikely to have any benefit in terms of preventing transmission. Problems include them not being positioned correctly, with the possibility that they actually increase the risk of transmission by blocking airflow. Therefore there is clear guidance to ministers that these perspex screens should be scrapped."
I don't think that's what it says. Rather, those that are installed badly are not effective. It doesn't say anything about the effectiveness of those that aren't.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
I'd say quite the opposite.
I think most English people for a long time, like most people around the globe, have considered the names England, Britain and UK to be pretty interchangeable.
Maybe it's time to just abolish Scotland altogether? Why not just make the County of Lanark just another English county?
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
If there’s going to be a Scottish Parliament (and Welsh and NI Parliaments) then we have to also have an English Parliament.
A large percentage of the public probably don't understand the concept of herd immunity. They think the only way to stop the virus is to eliminate it.
Someone replied to that tweet from Dr Neil Stone about not knowing what will happen after the 19th with: "Genocide via a negligent 'herd immunity' policy".
The catastrophisation of language we are starting to see this week, suggests that either this group of people feel that they have become ‘influential’ during the pandemic, and don’t want it to end for their own personal reasons; or they’re starting from their conclusion of opposition to the government, and working backwards from there.
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
If anything the ramping up of language is a sign of desperation. It’s a form of Godwinism.
In March 2020 pursuing herd immunity that in some modelling would kill 250,000 people was deemed “madness”. (Such a policy wasn’t even pushed once the numbers became accepted). In June 2021 when, there is no respectable model, even at extremes, that predicts that, it is genocide.
Give it a few weeks, and they’ll be on to the H-word.
Things must go back to the way they were before Covid. The government needs to persuade people to do so.
It is the government's fault that people are thinking like they are
Johnson & Co themselves framed the debate as the 'safety' of lockdown versus the 'risk' of freedom. They have done that for a year and a half.
Now of course with the debt ballooning and the economy nowhere near full speed, the government are forced to admit this that was a completely false choice.
Far from being 'safe' , long-term restrictions on freedom and businesses are ruinous and utterly reckless gamble with any nation's finance.
The thing is they can hardly point this out when they have been lying through their teeth to the electorate about the real choices we face for f8cking ever.
Codswallop.
It's not the debt or the economy that is the big difference it is that the vaccines have changed things. The vaccines have worked and thanks to that we are now unlocking.
They haven't lied to anyone. The lockdown was to keep people safe until the vaccines were rolled out, well now it's Mission Accomplished.
The vaccines do not explain why 25% of voters want all nightclubs outlawed for ever under any circumstances.
They really don't.
The primary purpose of nightclubs appears to be to facilitate footballers getting involved in "an incident outside a nightclub".
Shut them down for the sake of the beautiful game.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
Well, of course, it has to be allowed to influence UK policy. Unless you object to that?
Honestly the attacks go from the ridiculous to the absurd. Forget “stay at home to protect the NHS”. Now it’s “stay at home to protect... Test and Trace”!
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
No, no: you have it the other way round. The Anglican Church might be permitted to merge with the EC of S. It's the Anglican Churtch that has first to diverst itself of the Henrician baggage of rule by the Sovereign of England.
The EU says the U.K. owes it $56.2 billion as part of the Brexit settlement https://trib.al/SbdwHyV
That's not an amended exit bill; it's the exit bill plus the first n years of schemes we subsequently agreed to remain part of. As they say in the second paragraph.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Also the point that the Scottish Episcopal Church has never been part of the C of E (as a few civil wars made clear).
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
If there’s going to be a Scottish Parliament (and Welsh and NI Parliaments) then we have to also have an English Parliament.
Agree entirely, either we become a genuine Federal UK and add an English Parliament to join those of the other Home Nations or we return to the Union as was and scrap Holyrood, the Senedd and Stormont and return to direct rule by Westminster
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
If there’s going to be a Scottish Parliament (and Welsh and NI Parliaments) then we have to also have an English Parliament.
Agree entirely, either we become a genuine Federal UK and add an English Parliament to join those of the other Home Nations or we return to the Union as was and scrap Holyrood, the Senedd and Stormont and return to direct rule by Westminster
Logic failure. There is a third option, as well as the status quo (which has been good enough for Unionists for 100 eyars exactly, vide Stormont).
Honestly the attacks go from the ridiculous to the absurd. Forget “stay at home to protect the NHS”. Now it’s “stay at home to protect... Test and Trace”!
The EU says the U.K. owes it $56.2 billion as part of the Brexit settlement https://trib.al/SbdwHyV
That's not an amended exit bill; it's the exit bill plus the first n years of schemes we subsequently agreed to remain part of. As they say in the second paragraph.
Quite how they managed to create that headline given the facts is beyond me. The exit bill is definitely distinct from any continuing membership fees owed.
The thing that the government got wrong was about 18 months ago, they decided to tell people that a virus which is fairly serious in old people and almost entirely harmless in young people was the new black death.
Now, all the gullible people who believe whatever rubbish the government/media want to tell them are scared rigid of it, despite vaccines making it pretty much a non-issue for the old as well.
If Covid had had a hospitalisation profile when it arrived like it has now, you'd be lucky if it generated a paragraph on page 15 of The Times, and normal life would be continuing.
The government never said any such thing. If you think it did that is because at least one of your intelligence and your memory is seriously faulty.
You have either not heard of or not understood the implications of the emergence and nature of the delta variant. Everybody, whether they agree with the government's policy or disagree with it, accepts that the policy is high risk. Everybody except you, anyway.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
Well, of course, it has to be allowed to influence UK policy. Unless you object to that?
No but I do object it to having devolved powers England does not
The EU says the U.K. owes it $56.2 billion as part of the Brexit settlement https://trib.al/SbdwHyV
That's not an amended exit bill; it's the exit bill plus the first n years of schemes we subsequently agreed to remain part of. As they say in the second paragraph.
Quite how they managed to create that headline given the facts is beyond me. The exit bill is definitely distinct from any continuing membership fees owed.
Things must go back to the way they were before Covid. The government needs to persuade people to do so.
It is the government's fault that people are thinking like they are
Johnson & Co themselves framed the debate as the 'safety' of lockdown versus the 'risk' of freedom. They have done that for a year and a half.
Now of course with the debt ballooning and the economy nowhere near full speed, the government are forced to admit this that was a completely false choice.
Far from being 'safe' , long-term restrictions on freedom and businesses are ruinous and utterly reckless gamble with any nation's finance.
The thing is they can hardly point this out when they have been lying through their teeth to the electorate about the real choices we face for f8cking ever.
Codswallop.
It's not the debt or the economy that is the big difference it is that the vaccines have changed things. The vaccines have worked and thanks to that we are now unlocking.
They haven't lied to anyone. The lockdown was to keep people safe until the vaccines were rolled out, well now it's Mission Accomplished.
That wasn't the purpose of the original lockdown. The original lockdown was about trying to prevent the systemic collapse of the NHS due to the potential for a massive peak in cases. Somewhere along the line, this mission-crept to "try and stop people dying whilst we wait for vaccines to turn up". This turns out to have been a fairly good strategy, as the vaccines worked well. Had vaccine development been unsuccessful, it would have been a terrible strategy, all the costs of lockdown, and at the end of it, back to square one anyway.
My biggest worry looking to the future is that one day this sort of crisis may occur again, but the vaccines don't ride to the rescue. How long would it take before the politicians stopped locking us down, even though they would just be delaying the inevitable.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
If there’s going to be a Scottish Parliament (and Welsh and NI Parliaments) then we have to also have an English Parliament.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
Well, of course, it has to be allowed to influence UK policy. Unless you object to that?
No but I do object it to having devolved powers England does not
So why did the Conservative and Unionist Party do precisaely that for Stormont, and why did it not close it down when the time was opportune?
And why have the Conservatives not set up an English Parliament in the last, oh, 100 years? Because that's the length of time that particular anomaly has existed.
The thing that the government got wrong was about 18 months ago, they decided to tell people that a virus which is fairly serious in old people and almost entirely harmless in young people was the new black death.
Now, all the gullible people who believe whatever rubbish the government/media want to tell them are scared rigid of it, despite vaccines making it pretty much a non-issue for the old as well.
If Covid had had a hospitalisation profile when it arrived like it has now, you'd be lucky if it generated a paragraph on page 15 of The Times, and normal life would be continuing.
The government never said any such thing. If you think it did that is because at least one of your intelligence and your memory is seriously faulty.
You have either not heard of or not understood the implications of the emergence and nature of the delta variant. Everybody, whether they agree with the government's policy or disagree with it, accepts that the policy is high risk. Everybody except you, anyway.
No those with an agenda to push are calling it high risk.
Given the figures on death rates and antibodies there is no more real risk of the NHS being overwhelmed than there ever normally is now.
The government have been farcically cautious in waiting as long as they have and those calling it high risk to proceed now have an agenda to push.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
If there’s going to be a Scottish Parliament (and Welsh and NI Parliaments) then we have to also have an English Parliament.
If only there was a way which a nation/region with 80%+ of the mps in a parliament which has constitutional oversight of a unitary state could make this happen.
You know the perspex screens in restaurants, offices, etc? Turns out they aren't any good. In fact they're making things worse, according to this article.
"Perspex screens scrapped: Ministers are also being advised that those perspex screens that have appeared in some offices and restaurants are unlikely to have any benefit in terms of preventing transmission. Problems include them not being positioned correctly, with the possibility that they actually increase the risk of transmission by blocking airflow. Therefore there is clear guidance to ministers that these perspex screens should be scrapped."
I don't think that's what it says. Rather, those that are installed badly are not effective. It doesn't say anything about the effectiveness of those that aren't.
Physical barriers form an integral part of both infection control in healthcare settings and containment in labs. But I think that in public facing locations, these types of barriers if not properly designed, let alone not properly installed, could create new problems, including some from behavioural modification occasioned by the barrier.
As one whose age is impacting my hearing, I find myself leaning in much closer at counters where these barriers are installed just so that I can hear what the person is saying. Now, how does that impact transmission?
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
Federalism could still work. The elephant in the room with the current settlement is the lack of an English parliament. As with God Save the Queen the view is that the national parliament is also the English parliament (because the nation is England anyway).
Create 4 fully functional parliaments with maximum possible devolution, widen out the role of Westminster so that it more for national defence and strategic planning, and the UK might hold together.
Sadly there is little chance of it. The UK in its current form is unsustainable. NI has already been cast off to the status of a semi-detached colony. Scotland is being told that democracy is dead in Scotland because the views of England overrule it. Wales is enjoying its growing powers and wanting to do things differently. England either doesn't care much or just wants the moaning to stop.
We're going to break apart regardless of how nostalgically sad that makes people feel. Once Brexit plays out for a few more years and we can see if England will come to its senses and actually want free trade partners then we can shape the form of the divorce.
The lack of an English parliament has been “the elephant in the room” for my entire adult life. It is one hell of an inconspicuous pachyderm.
Just curious, but at what point in your life did you decide that Scotland needed a separate government/parliament?
The main reason that there isn't an English parliament is of course that most English people really see the UK as their nation, and only see the distinction when it comes to sport - and then only for fun.
England gave up being England long ago.
Sad if true. Goodbye one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen.
Some would argue that we really didn’t amount to much until we took in the Scots (or perhaps, stopped fighting wars with them and started working with them) - and the best of many other countries as well - the strength of the Navy was basically created on the back of appropriating the Dutch, for example)
“We took in the Scots”.
Now, where does one begin?
I don’t know, you tell me. There is obviously something of a belief among Scottish Nationalists that Scotland has been living under the imperial yoke for centuries its identity suppressed, its people living as second class citizens and its people secretly longing to break free. The evidence for this is... pretty much zero. For centuries Scots have been at the heart of the U.K., some of its biggest beneficiaries, some of its most enthusiastic advocates for British projection of strength abroad through the empire, and as much of an important political battleground at Westminster as anywhere in the U.K.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
Scotland now has its own Parliament unlike England but yet still elects MPs to Westminster
Well, of course, it has to be allowed to influence UK policy. Unless you object to that?
No but I do object it to having devolved powers England does not
And does the Government (or any realistic alternative to the Government) have any intention whatsoever of resolving this matter? Of course not.
Once again, there are so many problems that could be resolved by the expedient of breaking up the UK.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Also the point that the Scottish Episcopal Church has never been part of the C of E (as a few civil wars made clear).
IIRC - and I am no expert on Scottish ecclesiastical history - it was a separate province under the Metropolitan Archbishop of St Andrews.
Unlike say, Wales, where the four medieval dioceses were considered, certainly by the 1130s, to be part of the province of Canterbury.
And, of course, the break with Rome in England (1538) and the reformation in Scotland (1560) both happened before 1603, never mind 1707, so it’s not surprising that the processes and therefore churches remain separate. Henry VIII and even Somerset were no John Knox.
‘Why is the government planning to scrap English Votes for English Laws?’
Johnson’s neo-unionism reflects a British imaginary that sees devolved government and calls to provide some form of English-level recognition as sources of fragmentation, and resiles from the idea that the UK is a voluntary union of self-determining peoples. In taking this line his administration has triggered an increasingly open conflict with the pro-devolution unionist position, which was, until recently, the prevalent view in both Whitehall and Westminster.
One can, of course, advance a perfectly legitimate argument that devolution has been catastrophic for the Union, but a response that consists, essentially, of leaving it untouched where it already exists whilst failing to implement equivalence where it does not is the worst of all worlds. The only stable configurations for the UK are a federation or a unitary state, not the dog's breakfast that the idiot Blair bequeathed us.
Of course, Boris Johnson is a lucky general. If the British state does finally founder, it'll almost certainly be on someone else's watch.
If they wanted a unitary state they should have done it shortly after 1707. Yes, they successfully tricked the Scots nobility with English gold and juicy terms in the Treaty of Union, but they should have reneged on the lot in the first 10 years and effectively have imposed a unitary dictatorship on the whole island. By now GB would be as uniform as, say, Italy, Germany or France.
The key error was allowing the College of Justice to continue to exist. And the Kirk.
But far too late now.
(I laugh when folk blame Blair. They obviously know zilch about the mood at the time. Blair was painted into a corner, and boy did he know it.)
(As for “federation”: that’s the biggest yawn fest of Scottish politics. Gordon Brown’s neverending whine.)
The idea that it would have been possible to marginalise presbyterianism in Scotland, and impose Anglicanism, in the early 1700s pays no regard to the realities of what had been happening since 1688. Apart from Roman Catholicism the post 1688 regime allowed religious toleration in England.
Episcopalianism, although defeated in 1690 could easily have been reimposed after 1707. Yes, there would have been bloodshed, but there is little doubt that the English could have imposed their will, if they really wanted to. There have always been enough collaborators in Scotland to support the English cause.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
There is certainly no reason the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot be merged with the Church of England
Apart from being in another country?
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
Just change its name to the Episcopal Church of England and Scotland, not difficult or the Church of the British Isles and add the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales too
The Episcopal Kirk here might have a few words to say about that. Probably has the trademark already, never mind what he Charity Commission for Scotland might say abotu such obvious passing off.
Comments
Continued insistence on mask-wearing will make me feel less safe, and I will avoid places that insist on them as much as possible.
The vaccines have broken the link between case rates and hospitalisations, and now that we’ve offered vaccines to everyone, there’s no need to “protect the NHS” any more - which let us not forget, resulted in the most draconian restrictions imposed since WWII.
Pfizer makes the world's best selling CV19 vaccine that they somehow manged to invent in just a day.
Given Covid seems almost entirely designed to boost Pfizer's profits, are we really sure it was a Chinese lab it escaped from?
They really don't.
Now you're acting like Nothing Has Changed. Funny that.
And probably there'd be a proportion who would have said that pre Covid too.
And not wearing a mask.
Feels fine.
That is a seriously fucked up set of survey results.
I don't favour that, personally. But I don't mind wearing a mask on crowded trains and in shops, and maybe that'll become the accepted norm, enforced by shops ("we only have masked customers") and individual preference ("I shop where..."). Societies change and there's nothing inherently evil about a mask except that we've not been used to them..
I only use Viagra to stop myself rolling out of bed, works brilliantly.
But England didn’t, and we’re living with the consequences. While the legislature was removed to London, the Scottish state remained largely intact back home. Big mistake. De Pfeffel is try to close the stable door over 300 years too late.
Saw Liverpool Street station, and the Barbican. Not too many people about, but not exactly "28 Days Later" either! Got back to Ilford by 4pm just as the rush hour was building!
Broadgate building opposite Liverpool Street finally finished, also saw a fair number of new Class 720 trains and a Continental style Class 745. Crossrail entrance just outside Broadgate seems all but complete, but shuttered up.
Felt genuinely weird seeing places I'd been to so many times in the past, but not for 16 months!
I thought you were against that kind of thing.
56 Percent Of Americans Don't Think We Should Teach Arabic Numerals In School
https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/56-percent-of-americans-dont-think-we-should-teach-arabic-numerals-in-school/
Personally I'm looking forward to multiplication using Roman numerals.
I can't remember what 51, 6, and 500 are in Roman numerals I am fucking LIVID.
I think most English people for a long time, like most people around the globe, have considered the names England, Britain and UK to be pretty interchangeable.
Please God make the masks go away when the emergency is over.
If they're not they should probably shield for a few weeks until the last of this burns out.
Oops CCCCC
That's the thing. You were out there for sixteen months. What happened was, you had drifted right through the core systems, and it's really just blind luck that a deep salvage team found you when they did. It's one in a thousand, really. I think you're damn lucky to be alive, kiddo. You could be floating out there forever.
Someone downthread said that no-one had tried to justify why masks should be dropped. So I'll have a go in three hits. I admit not many have justified removal of mask mandates - and I think that is because, like banning peanuts from certain environments like schools where one child is allergic, it is seen as 'low cost' or 'not a huge deal'.
1) Philosophical. In my view that is not a sensible or desirable policy for a whole society to adapt permanently to for a transient event, nor is it justified to protect a tiny minority of immuno-supressed individuals who live with the chance of catching the flu every-day, anyway. Since the chance of medical collapse has gone, the analogy of masks to protect the vulnerable would be banning peanuts across the country because some are allergic. imposing restrictions on the many in the small chance that it might prevent the odd infection for a tiny minority of unvaccinated individuals is unwieldy.
2) Scientific and epidemiological. For a start, the cloth I wear over my face does little to nothing to stop any spread. It isn't properly fitted, I don't replace it frequently enough. I have seen much worse than my own. So they largely don't work in the real world. Secondly, we have a vaccine wall which will protect us far more. A pandemic exit wave will burn out in population whether vaccinated or not; we've done wonders, we need to have confidence in science
3) Socio-political. Masks to me are a symbol of fear, concern, or general alertness - and I am sure that I am not alone. The crisis is over. I don't want people covering to the whims of authority forever and a day. Fear makes society far too easy to mould by those who govern a fearful society is not a free society. It is suboptimal.
To conclude; I think the problem is that people have come to see any covid as terrible, and therefore support any measures to supress it, no matter how onerous. This is foolish. We will not be rid of it. Living with it is the only way through.
The health of the NHS and the public finances as well as the nation would be transformed if obese people were sent to concentration camps and starved thin.
The path to freedom comes partly from the tories late realisation of the terrible situation they were drifting into. A situation they were partly alerted to by their own voters no-showing in the South in May and last month.
There will be permanent changes in commuting patterns though, which will affect different areas in different ways. There will be opportunities for coffee shops and pubs in small towns and villages, as these same opportunities disappear in the larger cities.
If I had a small town or residential area pub, I’d be investing right now in power sockets and decent wifi, and be looking at £20 ‘day worker’ packages which include a sandwich and a pint, and free coffee refills. There’s always opportunities.
And all the scientists who dogmatically refuse to accept that we are in a different world today than last September, and just constantly parrot “we’re making all the same mistakes again...
Whatever the merits of Scottish independence it upsets the long-held thoughts of many.
I tend to think enormously well of the people that simply see us in these unions as indivisible. However that doesn't mean that these arrangements can't or shouldn't change.
I'm the same with shopping, haven't done any except for essentials since last March. I have quite a large shopping list waiting for when it can be a pleasant experience again.
How harsh a lesson that 'the rent is always the only game in town need to be?' That's the question.
Now, where does one begin?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals
Anyway, the Arabs partly borrowed them from the Hindus.
Clearly looked at through the prism of the last 40 years, with Tory and then Labour decline, and the rise of Nationalism from almost nothing things look very different. But that is hardly the reality of the previous 4 centuries. We were always better as friends, partners and then collaborators than as enemies.
"Interestingly, while COVID is still seen as a risk support for restrictions tends to be stronger among older age groups, but that age difference disappears when we ask about support for restrictions remaining in place permanently (and if anything, older groups actually become more opposed)." Ipsos own commentary
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/majority-britons-support-extending-certain-covid-19-restrictions-not-forever
Or, more likely, a fair bit of both.
https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/london-playbook/politico-london-playbook-living-with-corona-work-from-home-long-term-perspex-screens-scrapped/
"Perspex screens scrapped: Ministers are also being advised that those perspex screens that have appeared in some offices and restaurants are unlikely to have any benefit in terms of preventing transmission. Problems include them not being positioned correctly, with the possibility that they actually increase the risk of transmission by blocking airflow. Therefore there is clear guidance to ministers that these perspex screens should be scrapped."
I mean, a lot of Professor Matthew Goodwin's use of poll data is garbage, but his theory that a lot of voters want nanny state, as long as nanny is strict, is hard to ignore. (Though whenever I hear the words "Professor Matthew Goodwin", the mental image that I get is "Professor Jimmy Edwards". Not sure why.)
"Interestingly, while COVID is still seen as a risk support for restrictions tends to be stronger among older age groups, but that age difference disappears when we ask about support for restrictions remaining in place permanently (and if anything, older groups actually become more opposed)." Ipsos own commentary
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/majority-britons-support-extending-certain-covid-19-restrictions-not-forever
In March 2020 pursuing herd immunity that in some modelling would kill 250,000 people was deemed “madness”. (Such a policy wasn’t even pushed once the numbers became accepted). In June 2021 when, there is no respectable model, even at extremes, that predicts that, it is genocide.
Now, all the gullible people who believe whatever rubbish the government/media want to tell them are scared rigid of it, despite vaccines making it pretty much a non-issue for the old as well.
If Covid had had a hospitalisation profile when it arrived like it has now, you'd be lucky if it generated a paragraph on page 15 of The Times, and normal life would be continuing.
Shut them down for the sake of the beautiful game.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/lifting-covid-rules-in-england-will-overwhelm-testing-capacity
In any case, I think you will find that there are two provinces of the Episcopal Communion in England.
You have either not heard of or not understood the implications of the emergence and nature of the delta variant. Everybody, whether they agree with the government's policy or disagree with it, accepts that the policy is high risk. Everybody except you, anyway.
Somewhere along the line, this mission-crept to "try and stop people dying whilst we wait for vaccines to turn up".
This turns out to have been a fairly good strategy, as the vaccines worked well. Had vaccine development been unsuccessful, it would have been a terrible strategy, all the costs of lockdown, and at the end of it, back to square one anyway.
My biggest worry looking to the future is that one day this sort of crisis may occur again, but the vaccines don't ride to the rescue. How long would it take before the politicians stopped locking us down, even though they would just be delaying the inevitable.
Jobs for the boys
And why have the Conservatives not set up an English Parliament in the last, oh, 100 years? Because that's the length of time that particular anomaly has existed.
Given the figures on death rates and antibodies there is no more real risk of the NHS being overwhelmed than there ever normally is now.
The government have been farcically cautious in waiting as long as they have and those calling it high risk to proceed now have an agenda to push.
As one whose age is impacting my hearing, I find myself leaning in much closer at counters where these barriers are installed just so that I can hear what the person is saying. Now, how does that impact transmission?
Once again, there are so many problems that could be resolved by the expedient of breaking up the UK.
Unlike say, Wales, where the four medieval dioceses were considered, certainly by the 1130s, to be part of the province of Canterbury.
And, of course, the break with Rome in England (1538) and the reformation in Scotland (1560) both happened before 1603, never mind 1707, so it’s not surprising that the processes and therefore churches remain separate. Henry VIII and even Somerset were no John Knox.