Yes, in NI the Secretary of State must call a border poll if it seems likely that most voting would vote to leave the UK there.
For example if Nationalist parties won more votes and seats than Unionist parties at Stormont or if polling showed a consistent majority in favour of a united Ireland.
There is no such provision for Scotland however, so even if the SNP and Greens won every Holyrood seat and Yes was on 100%, the UK government at Westminster could still in theory refuse an indyref2. However Jack set the 60% Yes figure in polls as if almost 2/3 of Scots want independence it would be practically difficult for Westminster to deny an indyref2
Even if it was more often than 'once in a generation'? You're softening your position. Do I sense a change in policy coming?
Anyway, shouldn't you be off to Church?
Indeed, no Presbyterian Scot would be engaging in works of neither necessity nor mercy on the Sabbath. But the Henrician Church is different. Happily HYUFD seems to be settling down to more important matters of life and death than polling, at least till later today.
But let us return to our hoggetts, wedders and yowes - @TSE , that was a surprising start to your Scottish run. Well done.
It actually made me inspect Mr Jack's scale model of Edinburgh's Turd Hotel rather more closely. If you investigate it with a long stick, one or two sweetcorn kernels emerge. One is, who decides which polling results and indeed pollsters are acceptable? We've had at least one PBTory go wild and denounce polls in support for independence as a priori bent.
But perhaps more importantly, who commissions the polls? There is a general issue concerning government by polling which nobody so far today seems to have picked up on, and which affects Scotland badly. Every substantial corporate media outlet* in Scotland or with a significant interest in Scotland is very firmly Unionist[edit], anmd they are the ones which commission polls. Are they going to publish poll results in favour of independence now that the results have a real world significance over and above their usual one? The Westminster Gmt must be leaning on them very hard to publish only polls with the Approved Unionist Result.
The other thing that strikes me is it is yet another example of goalpost moving by the Unionists - from the days when Mrs T accepted in (I think) jest but unwitting foresight that all the SNP needed was a simple majority of MPs for Scottish seats.** And if it was good enough for Mrs T ...
*Yes, I know about the National - but it's owned by a Unionist firm, which (so far as I can see) puts far more resources into its Unionist stablemate the Herald.
** Not quite in so much detail - but in thos edays, what other criterion was there for a majority of the popular will?
Two actually, the first of whom is Professor Susan Michie....
It’s the same scientists over and over again.
It seems highly probable they are right about this, mind. What's the epidemiological difference between a freshers week party, and Boardmasters?
None of the freshers week events I went to were quite as big as Boardmasters IIRC. In any event, cases in England as a whole are falling even after Boardmasters.
It only takes 2 for a contagious event to occur.
Also, what a bizarre use of statistics. If you go to the doctor and say I think I've broken my leg, does he a. check the latest UK statistics for broken legs per 100,000 in your demographic or b. examine your leg?
Can’t Westminster just pass an act for Scottish Independence now? Devolution doesn’t work, federalism probably won’t work, going beck to the status quo ante 1998 is politically unacceptable which leaves dissolving the Union the only logical next step. It’s a damaging Union for all parties.
Federalism might well work.
Probably not, and it is unlikely to be tried either. Everyone can appreciate that the devolution settlement is a mess that wholly satisfies almost no-one, but the overriding aim of the pro-Union parties at Westminster is (from their point of view) to avoid making a bad situation even worse.
The problem with federalism is that you either create an English Parliament - in which case, there's a tremendous risk of an actual ENP emerging and finishing Britain off from the centre - or you try to cut England up into (mostly artificial) regions, which then means that Westminster has a dozen or more constantly aggrieved devolved First Ministers to deal with instead of just three.
From the point of view of the Unionists, the least worst option is to leave things more-or-less as they are, and to try to make it too scary for voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to leave - primarily by throwing vast amounts of money at them, and therefore inviting them to contemplate how they would cope without it.
Couple of points. On Federalism. An English parliament remains the missing link in the constitutional settlement. Yes it would be large and unwieldy compared to the other parliaments but the English block in Westminster already does that. If England then wants regional devolution thats up to them - a matter for their new parliament.
On throwing money at us - fat chance. England isn't about to throw money at England so there is no chance of it being flung across the wall or across the water.
Two actually, the first of whom is Professor Susan Michie....
About (tomorrow) to meet with Grandson Two before he goes off to Uni for the first time in mid Sept. Grandparental advice.... avoid Freshers Week parties..... I don't think so. Need to give advice that's likely to be accepted. Guardian had a useful one yesterday; never buy a book that you can borrow from the library!
Did you explain the library is where non-drinkers go in order to download books off the web?
That if he does not understand something, he should ask his tutor, his mates, or watch a couple of video lectures from other universities?
We can assume he already knows how to revise with spaced repetition and active recall.
OK got one. At the start of every module, he should check how it will be examined – essays, MCQs, lab notebooks, thesis, whatever.
Always take some dirty washing home to mum so she feels appreciated, even if she pretends not to.
Don't fall behind. Don't join so many clubs there is no time left for study, but on the other hand, always say yes to new experiences.
And enjoy it. These should be the happiest days of his life.
Yes, in NI the Secretary of State must call a border poll if it seems likely that most voting would vote to leave the UK there.
For example if Nationalist parties won more votes and seats than Unionist parties at Stormont or if polling showed a consistent majority in favour of a united Ireland.
There is no such provision for Scotland however, so even if the SNP and Greens won every Holyrood seat and Yes was on 100%, the UK government at Westminster could still in theory refuse an indyref2. However Jack set the 60% Yes figure in polls as if almost 2/3 of Scots want independence it would be practically difficult for Westminster to deny an indyref2
Even if it was more often than 'once in a generation'? You're softening your position. Do I sense a change in policy coming?
Anyway, shouldn't you be off to Church?
Indeed, no Presbyterian Scot would be engaging in works of neither necessity nor mercy on the Sabbath. But the Henrician Church is different. Happily HYUFD seems to be settling down to more important matters of life and death than polling, at least till later today.
But let us return to our hoggetts, wedders and yowes - @TSE , that was a surprising start to your Scottish run. Well done.
It actually made me inspect Mr Jack's scale model of Edinburgh's Turd Hotel rather more closely. If you investigate it with a long stick, one or two sweetcorn kernels emerge. One is, who decides which polling results and indeed pollsters are acceptable? We've had at least one PBTory go wild and denounce polls in support for independence as a priori bent.
But perhaps more importantly, who commissions the polls? There is a general issue concerning government by polling which nobody so far today seems to have picked up on, and which affects Scotland badly. Every substantial corporate media outlet* in Scotland or with a significant interest in Scotland is very firmly Unionist. Are they going to publish polls in favour of independence now that the results have a real world significance over and above their usual one? The Westminster Gmt must be leaning on them very hard to publish only polls with the Approved Unionist Result.
The other thing that strikes me is it is yet another example of goalpost moving by the Unionists - from the days when Mrs T accepted in (I think) jest but unwitting foresight that all the SNP needed was a simple majority of MPs for Scottish seats.** And if it was good enough for Mrs T ...
*Yes, I know about the National - but it's owned by a Unionist firm, which (so far as I can see) puts far more resources into its Unionist stablemate the Herald.
** Not quite in so much detail - but in thos edays, what other criterion was there for a majority of the popular will?
Just to let you know the trilingual gag wasn't wasted.
Mr. G, it'd shift more powers towards Scotland and make it easier to say "look, we're pretty much governing ourselves already, so why not do it properly?".
Mr. Pigeon, don't forget aggravated voters.
I haven't, but the idea that "more powers" will improve matters has already been refuted by past events.
England is ten times the size of Scotland. Scotland's politicians, and a large chunk of the people, blame the English for all sorts under devolution, would do so under Home Rule, and would also do so if independent. That's just life.
Two actually, the first of whom is Professor Susan Michie....
It’s the same scientists over and over again.
It seems highly probable they are right about this, mind. What's the epidemiological difference between a freshers week party, and Boardmasters?
None of the freshers week events I went to were quite as big as Boardmasters IIRC. In any event, cases in England as a whole are falling even after Boardmasters.
It only takes 2 for a contagious event to occur.
Also, what a bizarre use of statistics. If you go to the doctor and say I think I've broken my leg, does he a. check the latest UK statistics for broken legs per 100,000 in your demographic or b. examine your leg?
That’s a fair point so I fall back on the fact that, as the article says, the young have had it shit for 18 months. What’s the prescription to fix the broken leg you use as your simile? Ban freshers week? Michie, the behavioural scientist not epidemiologist, appears to be implying a ban on alcohol. I don’t want to get all Contrarian about this but there are, at this relatively late stage, bigger societal factors in play. What sort of behaviours are we wanting to ban?
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
Worse - that the actual votes cast in the actual election count for nothing. The SNP and Green parties ran on explicit platforms for an independence referendum. Record turnout. Record 55% of MSPs elected for a referendum. "Doesn't count, must be 60%" says Mr SofS personally elected on 44% vote share.
The last 10 days have been a traumatic period for so many, not least our soldiers who are reportedly, in some cases, experiencing PTSD and I know the serious nature of this as my eldest son has been suffering for some years and at 55 is unlikely to work again
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve, and as the last aircraft lands back in the UK with our soldiers I for one just have a huge feeling of relief they are home and that we must never again involve ourselves in foreign wars
The political fallout is hard to judge but if labour cannot regain a poll lead now, when will they
If the forces aren't going to engage in foreign wars, what are they for?
PTSD in veterans is quite an issue, but mental health services will always be crap. It always has been the cinderella of health care, and always will be.
The priorities in this country are unbelievable. Assuming people are fed, clothed and housed, what can ever be more important than health?
We should double or treble taxes if necessary to ensure we never leave people lacking the health services they need.
Two actually, the first of whom is Professor Susan Michie....
It’s the same scientists over and over again.
It seems highly probable they are right about this, mind. What's the epidemiological difference between a freshers week party, and Boardmasters?
None of the freshers week events I went to were quite as big as Boardmasters IIRC. In any event, cases in England as a whole are falling even after Boardmasters.
It only takes 2 for a contagious event to occur.
Also, what a bizarre use of statistics. If you go to the doctor and say I think I've broken my leg, does he a. check the latest UK statistics for broken legs per 100,000 in your demographic or b. examine your leg?
That’s a fair point so I fall back on the fact that, as the article says, the young have had it shit for 18 months. What’s the prescription to fix the broken leg you use as your simile? Ban freshers week? Michie, the behavioural scientist not epidemiologist, appears to be implying a ban on alcohol. I don’t want to get all Contrarian about this but there are, at this relatively late stage, bigger societal factors in play. What sort of behaviours are we wanting to ban?
Sticking with the medical analogies, prognosis is one thing, prescription is another. My advice to the young would be, get as wasted as you possibly can, and we'll pick up the pieces thereafter.
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
Surely the biggest problem is our white elephant carriers, which are only useful for expeditionary warfare away from home waters. They take up a very big share of the budget, for a force that cannot operate independently of what have been shown to be unreliable partners.
Such is the strange new phase of Britain’s pandemic: The public has moved on, even if the virus has not. Given that Britain has been at the vanguard of so many previous coronavirus developments — from incubating variants to rolling out vaccines — experts say this could be a glimpse into the future for other countries.
Can’t Westminster just pass an act for Scottish Independence now? Devolution doesn’t work, federalism probably won’t work, going beck to the status quo ante 1998 is politically unacceptable which leaves dissolving the Union the only logical next step. It’s a damaging Union for all parties.
Federalism might well work.
Probably not, and it is unlikely to be tried either. Everyone can appreciate that the devolution settlement is a mess that wholly satisfies almost no-one, but the overriding aim of the pro-Union parties at Westminster is (from their point of view) to avoid making a bad situation even worse.
The problem with federalism is that you either create an English Parliament - in which case, there's a tremendous risk of an actual ENP emerging and finishing Britain off from the centre - or you try to cut England up into (mostly artificial) regions, which then means that Westminster has a dozen or more constantly aggrieved devolved First Ministers to deal with instead of just three.
From the point of view of the Unionists, the least worst option is to leave things more-or-less as they are, and to try to make it too scary for voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to leave - primarily by throwing vast amounts of money at them, and therefore inviting them to contemplate how they would cope without it.
Couple of points. On Federalism. An English parliament remains the missing link in the constitutional settlement. Yes it would be large and unwieldy compared to the other parliaments but the English block in Westminster already does that. If England then wants regional devolution thats up to them - a matter for their new parliament.
On throwing money at us - fat chance. England isn't about to throw money at England so there is no chance of it being flung across the wall or across the water.
On the English Parliament: it might not pump rocket fuel into a populist independence movement, but I wouldn't count on it. Look at Holyrood.
On the money: the devolved administrations are already heavily subsidised by Westminster. In the Scottish case, the GERS figures tell us this. If you're moving towards the denialist camp on this then there's no point in my trying to convince you otherwise, but it is what it is.
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
"votes" or "MSPs elected"?
Ah ok. If votes cast count for more than MPs elected then I hope we can all enjoy the Labour / SNP / LD government clearly elected in the 2019 general election
I see that the irrational hatred of Johnson has now resulted in a descent into outright clickbait.
"Irrational" by what definition?
Well, let’s start off with the obvious question. Why hate him? I’d hate Hitler and Stalin and Mao for the crimes they did but BJ? He is a fairly standard politician in a democracy.
I suspect a lot of the hatred has to do with the fact he seems to be a lot more in tune with many people than a lot on this site would want.
Can’t Westminster just pass an act for Scottish Independence now? Devolution doesn’t work, federalism probably won’t work, going beck to the status quo ante 1998 is politically unacceptable which leaves dissolving the Union the only logical next step. It’s a damaging Union for all parties.
Federalism might well work.
Probably not, and it is unlikely to be tried either. Everyone can appreciate that the devolution settlement is a mess that wholly satisfies almost no-one, but the overriding aim of the pro-Union parties at Westminster is (from their point of view) to avoid making a bad situation even worse.
The problem with federalism is that you either create an English Parliament - in which case, there's a tremendous risk of an actual ENP emerging and finishing Britain off from the centre - or you try to cut England up into (mostly artificial) regions, which then means that Westminster has a dozen or more constantly aggrieved devolved First Ministers to deal with instead of just three.
From the point of view of the Unionists, the least worst option is to leave things more-or-less as they are, and to try to make it too scary for voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to leave - primarily by throwing vast amounts of money at them, and therefore inviting them to contemplate how they would cope without it.
Couple of points. On Federalism. An English parliament remains the missing link in the constitutional settlement. Yes it would be large and unwieldy compared to the other parliaments but the English block in Westminster already does that. If England then wants regional devolution thats up to them - a matter for their new parliament.
On throwing money at us - fat chance. England isn't about to throw money at England so there is no chance of it being flung across the wall or across the water.
On the English Parliament: it might not pump rocket fuel into a populist independence movement, but I wouldn't count on it. Look at Holyrood.
On the money: the devolved administrations are already heavily subsidised by Westminster. In the Scottish case, the GERS figures tell us this. If you're moving towards the denialist camp on this then there's no point in my trying to convince you otherwise, but it is what it is.
My point on money was that *new* money would allegedly be thrown at us. Not the existing settlement. You and I both know there won't be a hosing of additional money across the wall to "make it too scary" for us to leave the UK.
Yes, in NI the Secretary of State must call a border poll if it seems likely that most voting would vote to leave the UK there.
For example if Nationalist parties won more votes and seats than Unionist parties at Stormont or if polling showed a consistent majority in favour of a united Ireland.
There is no such provision for Scotland however, so even if the SNP and Greens won every Holyrood seat and Yes was on 100%, the UK government at Westminster could still in theory refuse an indyref2. However Jack set the 60% Yes figure in polls as if almost 2/3 of Scots want independence it would be practically difficult for Westminster to deny an indyref2
Even if it was more often than 'once in a generation'? You're softening your position. Do I sense a change in policy coming?
Anyway, shouldn't you be off to Church?
Indeed, no Presbyterian Scot would be engaging in works of neither necessity nor mercy on the Sabbath. But the Henrician Church is different. Happily HYUFD seems to be settling down to more important matters of life and death than polling, at least till later today.
But let us return to our hoggetts, wedders and yowes - @TSE , that was a surprising start to your Scottish run. Well done.
It actually made me inspect Mr Jack's scale model of Edinburgh's Turd Hotel rather more closely. If you investigate it with a long stick, one or two sweetcorn kernels emerge. One is, who decides which polling results and indeed pollsters are acceptable? We've had at least one PBTory go wild and denounce polls in support for independence as a priori bent.
But perhaps more importantly, who commissions the polls? There is a general issue concerning government by polling which nobody so far today seems to have picked up on, and which affects Scotland badly. Every substantial corporate media outlet* in Scotland or with a significant interest in Scotland is very firmly Unionist[edit], anmd they are the ones which commission polls. Are they going to publish poll results in favour of independence now that the results have a real world significance over and above their usual one? The Westminster Gmt must be leaning on them very hard to publish only polls with the Approved Unionist Result.
The other thing that strikes me is it is yet another example of goalpost moving by the Unionists - from the days when Mrs T accepted in (I think) jest but unwitting foresight that all the SNP needed was a simple majority of MPs for Scottish seats.** And if it was good enough for Mrs T ...
*Yes, I know about the National - but it's owned by a Unionist firm, which (so far as I can see) puts far more resources into its Unionist stablemate the Herald.
** Not quite in so much detail - but in thos edays, what other criterion was there for a majority of the popular will?
One bit I removed from this piece during the drafting phase was a section that I expect to see fewer polls.
Ultimately polls cost money and most of the print media is losing money/revenue and polls don't cut it.
So we're likely to move to exclusively online polls and if there's a flaw in that methodology then there's potential for disaster.
There's also the risk that media organisation to move to unweighted online reader polls and say they are more accurate than regular polls because they have larger sample sizes.
When we all know those sort of polls are as about as accurate as Malcolm's prediction of Alba getting 12%-14% minimum in the list.
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
Surely the biggest problem is our white elephant carriers, which are only useful for expeditionary warfare away from home waters. They take up a very big share of the budget, for a force that cannot operate independently of what have been shown to be unreliable partners.
Indeed. But it seems to me that the problems are related: if they cannot be reliably protected ...? I used to work with an ex-RN submariner who had his own very distinctive view of such ships. I seem to recall driving across the Forth Bridge with him one day when one of the carriers was visible and his eyes lit up and he said "Target!!!".
I see that the irrational hatred of Johnson has now resulted in a descent into outright clickbait.
"Irrational" by what definition?
OK, fair point. There are perfectly rational reasons to hate Johnson, but given the extent to which it is now clouding judgment of previously much more objective and reasonable commenters, I am asserting that it's reached irrational levels.
The comments from the Scottish Secretary simply do not justify the headline. Even the Daily Mirror would be embarrassed to pretend that they did.
Yes, in NI the Secretary of State must call a border poll if it seems likely that most voting would vote to leave the UK there.
For example if Nationalist parties won more votes and seats than Unionist parties at Stormont or if polling showed a consistent majority in favour of a united Ireland.
There is no such provision for Scotland however, so even if the SNP and Greens won every Holyrood seat and Yes was on 100%, the UK government at Westminster could still in theory refuse an indyref2. However Jack set the 60% Yes figure in polls as if almost 2/3 of Scots want independence it would be practically difficult for Westminster to deny an indyref2
Even if it was more often than 'once in a generation'? You're softening your position. Do I sense a change in policy coming?
Anyway, shouldn't you be off to Church?
Indeed, no Presbyterian Scot would be engaging in works of neither necessity nor mercy on the Sabbath. But the Henrician Church is different. Happily HYUFD seems to be settling down to more important matters of life and death than polling, at least till later today.
But let us return to our hoggetts, wedders and yowes - @TSE , that was a surprising start to your Scottish run. Well done.
It actually made me inspect Mr Jack's scale model of Edinburgh's Turd Hotel rather more closely. If you investigate it with a long stick, one or two sweetcorn kernels emerge. One is, who decides which polling results and indeed pollsters are acceptable? We've had at least one PBTory go wild and denounce polls in support for independence as a priori bent.
But perhaps more importantly, who commissions the polls? There is a general issue concerning government by polling which nobody so far today seems to have picked up on, and which affects Scotland badly. Every substantial corporate media outlet* in Scotland or with a significant interest in Scotland is very firmly Unionist[edit], anmd they are the ones which commission polls. Are they going to publish poll results in favour of independence now that the results have a real world significance over and above their usual one? The Westminster Gmt must be leaning on them very hard to publish only polls with the Approved Unionist Result.
The other thing that strikes me is it is yet another example of goalpost moving by the Unionists - from the days when Mrs T accepted in (I think) jest but unwitting foresight that all the SNP needed was a simple majority of MPs for Scottish seats.** And if it was good enough for Mrs T ...
*Yes, I know about the National - but it's owned by a Unionist firm, which (so far as I can see) puts far more resources into its Unionist stablemate the Herald.
** Not quite in so much detail - but in thos edays, what other criterion was there for a majority of the popular will?
One bit I removed from this piece during the drafting phase was a section that I expect to see fewer polls.
Ultimately polls cost money and most of the print media is losing money/revenue and polls don't cut it.
So we're likely to move to exclusively online polls and if there's a flaw in that methodology then there's potential for disaster.
There's also the risk that media organisation to move to unweighted online reader polls and say they are more accurate than regular polls because they have larger sample sizes.
When we all know those sort of polls are as about as accurate as Malcolm's prediction of Alba getting 12%-14% minimum in the list.
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
Worse - that the actual votes cast in the actual election count for nothing. The SNP and Green parties ran on explicit platforms for an independence referendum. Record turnout. Record 55% of MSPs elected for a referendum. "Doesn't count, must be 60%" says Mr SofS personally elected on 44% vote share.
Point of order: the constitution isn't a devolved competence so what the manifestos for devolved elections have to say about it is, arguably, irrelevant. You'd be better off concentrating on how well the SNP did at the last GE.
Still doesn't address the question of whether or not there should be an unceasing conveyor belt of indyrefs after every SNP election victory though.
Such is the strange new phase of Britain’s pandemic: The public has moved on, even if the virus has not. Given that Britain has been at the vanguard of so many previous coronavirus developments — from incubating variants to rolling out vaccines — experts say this could be a glimpse into the future for other countries.
"Devi Sridhar, the head of the global public health program at the University of Edinburgh. “It’s really difficult to ask people not to mix for a prolonged period, especially if there is no solution.” "
Honestly, the sheer chutzpah of some of these experts is breathtaking. iirc Sridhar was the leading exponent of zerocovid and complete shutdown.
The Sun tips Michael Gove to replace Dominic Raab as Foreign Secretary, suggesting Boris can sell it to Raab as becoming de facto Deputy PM, and making it harder for Gove to plot against him. Though the Sun also notes that Gove was previously tipped to replace Priti Patel as Home Secretary. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15994444/michael-gove-tipped-for-job-swap-with-dominic-raab/
Seems to be a bad fit for Gove
Because of Gove's aversion to flying? At least he might show up for work occasionally during times of international crisis.
Because of mankind’s aversion to Gove.
Is that really the face, voice and defective personality England wants to represent it in the world stage? Really? I think you guys ought to desist with the self-flagellation for a while.
You do know there is a reason Michael Gove has a Scottish accent?
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
"votes" or "MSPs elected"?
The latter in this instance.
Because "votes" would be under 50%......(49% and 48.4% constituency/list respectively).
But that is under a voting system specifically designed to ensure that no party gets as many as half the MSPs. You're comparing Fruit Gums with overripe mangoes.
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
"votes" or "MSPs elected"?
The latter in this instance.
Because "votes" would be under 50%......(49% and 48.4% constituency/list respectively).
Yup, but I don't question the legitimacy of this government because it was only elected with fewer than 44% of the vote.
I'd also like to point out that the Holyrood system was designed to ensure no one party won a majority whereas at Westminster it is designed so a party can win a majority of seats on around 35% of the vote.
The last 10 days have been a traumatic period for so many, not least our soldiers who are reportedly, in some cases, experiencing PTSD and I know the serious nature of this as my eldest son has been suffering for some years and at 55 is unlikely to work again
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve, and as the last aircraft lands back in the UK with our soldiers I for one just have a huge feeling of relief they are home and that we must never again involve ourselves in foreign wars
The political fallout is hard to judge but if labour cannot regain a poll lead now, when will they
I don't see much negative fallout for the Conservatives here at all. It was Biden's decision and we had to pull our people out in the event of the US leaving.The BBC news narrative has been one of, as of yesterday the UK had got everyone out who we needed out.
I don't think the dogs thing is a negative either. The BBC news narrative implies that Johnson's team were so switched on they even got the stray animals back to Blighty before the window of opportunity closed.
Johnson has himself rather sensibly, kept his head down, so if it had gone/does go pear-shaped it wasn't on his watch. He delegated everything to Raab and Wallace.
As to the polls, free money and "Labour jabber, Conservatives jab" is still in the minds of the voters. No TV in Teeside, pricey petrol, and empty shelves may change that, but Afghanistan and dogs won't.
I do recall that Nicola Sturgeon's position has been that there should not be a second referendum until there is evidence of a material change in peoples' views. She said that in 2014 and has said it since. Even the SNP's suggestion that polling of 60% in favour of independence (which, to my knowledge, has never been achieved) is consistent with that position.
Under pressure from Alba and some in her own party she changed her position in 2020 arguing that a majority in the Scottish Parliament entitled her government to a referendum. As best as I could work out something like 50.1% of Scots voted for independence supporting parties and 49.9% voted for Unionist parties. It was extremely close but the nationalists won. My view, expressed at the time, is that this entitles them to a referendum if they want it.
The problem is that I do not think that Nicola does. She is very comfortable and well paid as FM and with her husband supposedly in charge of the SNP. She recognises that the current polling on independence makes a second defeat more likely than not. The deck is not nearly as stacked in favour of the SNP as Salmond managed to make it in 2014. What I think that she wants is to ask but be refused building that grievance once more.
The risk is that this, once again, gives Scotland the worst of all worlds. In the neverendum that was the run up to 2014 we had years of economic paralysis and uncertainty. We face the same again but it would be worse this time because of the SM UK/SM EU divide. We really cannot afford to have years of people not knowing if we would have free trade with rUK or not, what currency we are going to trade in, what it is going to be worth, etc. These uncertainties have real world costs. My view is that this 60% nonsense is a mistake. Sturgeon should be offered a referendum but not at the time of her choosing or contrivance. And it should be soon or not at all.
Can’t Westminster just pass an act for Scottish Independence now? Devolution doesn’t work, federalism probably won’t work, going beck to the status quo ante 1998 is politically unacceptable which leaves dissolving the Union the only logical next step. It’s a damaging Union for all parties.
Federalism might well work.
Probably not, and it is unlikely to be tried either. Everyone can appreciate that the devolution settlement is a mess that wholly satisfies almost no-one, but the overriding aim of the pro-Union parties at Westminster is (from their point of view) to avoid making a bad situation even worse.
The problem with federalism is that you either create an English Parliament - in which case, there's a tremendous risk of an actual ENP emerging and finishing Britain off from the centre - or you try to cut England up into (mostly artificial) regions, which then means that Westminster has a dozen or more constantly aggrieved devolved First Ministers to deal with instead of just three.
From the point of view of the Unionists, the least worst option is to leave things more-or-less as they are, and to try to make it too scary for voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to leave - primarily by throwing vast amounts of money at them, and therefore inviting them to contemplate how they would cope without it.
Couple of points. On Federalism. An English parliament remains the missing link in the constitutional settlement. Yes it would be large and unwieldy compared to the other parliaments but the English block in Westminster already does that. If England then wants regional devolution thats up to them - a matter for their new parliament.
On throwing money at us - fat chance. England isn't about to throw money at England so there is no chance of it being flung across the wall or across the water.
On the English Parliament: it might not pump rocket fuel into a populist independence movement, but I wouldn't count on it. Look at Holyrood.
On the money: the devolved administrations are already heavily subsidised by Westminster. In the Scottish case, the GERS figures tell us this. If you're moving towards the denialist camp on this then there's no point in my trying to convince you otherwise, but it is what it is.
My point on money was that *new* money would allegedly be thrown at us. Not the existing settlement. You and I both know there won't be a hosing of additional money across the wall to "make it too scary" for us to leave the UK.
That's not what I meant at all, although I wouldn't rule it out. The *existing* Scottish budget deficit, allied to questions over terms of trade and the currency, seems to be enough to do the job.
Most anti-independence voters in Scotland are not conviction Unionists. If they thought they'd be £1 per year better off leaving then they would've voted to go in 2014, and we'd not be having this conversation.
The last 10 days have been a traumatic period for so many, not least our soldiers who are reportedly, in some cases, experiencing PTSD and I know the serious nature of this as my eldest son has been suffering for some years and at 55 is unlikely to work again
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve, and as the last aircraft lands back in the UK with our soldiers I for one just have a huge feeling of relief they are home and that we must never again involve ourselves in foreign wars
The political fallout is hard to judge but if labour cannot regain a poll lead now, when will they
I don't see much negative fallout for the Conservatives here at all. It was Biden's decision and we had to pull our people out in the event of the US leaving.The BBC news narrative has been one of, as of yesterday the UK had got everyone out who we needed out.
I don't think the dogs thing is a negative either. The BBC news narrative implies that Johnson's team were so switched on they even got the stray animals back to Blighty before the window of opportunity closed.
Johnson has himself rather sensibly, kept his head down, so if it had gone/does go pear-shaped it wasn't on his watch. He delegated everything to Raab and Wallace.
As to the polls, free money and "Labour jabber, Conservatives jab" is still in the minds of the voters. No TV in Teeside, pricey petrol, and empty shelves may change that, but Afghanistan and dogs won't.
I see that the irrational hatred of Johnson has now resulted in a descent into outright clickbait.
"Irrational" by what definition?
OK, fair point. There are perfectly rational reasons to hate Johnson, but given the extent to which it is now clouding judgment of previously much more objective and reasonable commenters, I am asserting that it's reached irrational levels.
The comments from the Scottish Secretary simply do not justify the headline. Even the Daily Mirror would be embarrassed to pretend that they did.
The Scottish Secretary just negated the results of the 2021 Holyrood Elections.
People voted in record numbers and elected a record number of MSPs pledged to a 2nd referendum. For him to say "you can't have it, you need 60%" is to tell Scotland their votes don't count.
Feels like it justifies the headline to me. Then again its our votes that have just been negated. Perhaps you don't see the problem as your vote was respected in 2019.
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
"votes" or "MSPs elected"?
The latter in this instance.
Because "votes" would be under 50%......(49% and 48.4% constituency/list respectively).
Yup, but I don't question the legitimacy of this government because it was only elected with fewer than 44% of the vote.
I'd also like to point out that the Holyrood system was designed to ensure no one party won a majority whereas at Westminster it is designed so a party can win a majority of seats on around 35% of the vote.
I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the government - just their request to do something outwith their competence. If they won on the basis of declaring war on France you'd support that too? (actually, don't answer that...)
The last 10 days have been a traumatic period for so many, not least our soldiers who are reportedly, in some cases, experiencing PTSD and I know the serious nature of this as my eldest son has been suffering for some years and at 55 is unlikely to work again
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve, and as the last aircraft lands back in the UK with our soldiers I for one just have a huge feeling of relief they are home and that we must never again involve ourselves in foreign wars
The political fallout is hard to judge but if labour cannot regain a poll lead now, when will they
I don't see much negative fallout for the Conservatives here at all. It was Biden's decision and we had to pull our people out in the event of the US leaving.The BBC news narrative has been one of, as of yesterday the UK had got everyone out who we needed out.
I don't think the dogs thing is a negative either. The BBC news narrative implies that Johnson's team were so switched on they even got the stray animals back to Blighty before the window of opportunity closed.
Johnson has himself rather sensibly, kept his head down, so if it had gone/does go pear-shaped it wasn't on his watch. He delegated everything to Raab and Wallace.
As to the polls, free money and "Labour jabber, Conservatives jab" is still in the minds of the voters. No TV in Teeside, pricey petrol, and empty shelves may change that, but Afghanistan and dogs won't.
Keeping his head down (not like that) is the most sensible thing Johnson ever does. When he does it.
The last 10 days have been a traumatic period for so many, not least our soldiers who are reportedly, in some cases, experiencing PTSD and I know the serious nature of this as my eldest son has been suffering for some years and at 55 is unlikely to work again
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve, and as the last aircraft lands back in the UK with our soldiers I for one just have a huge feeling of relief they are home and that we must never again involve ourselves in foreign wars
The political fallout is hard to judge but if labour cannot regain a poll lead now, when will they
I don't see much negative fallout for the Conservatives here at all. It was Biden's decision and we had to pull our people out in the event of the US leaving.The BBC news narrative has been one of, as of yesterday the UK had got everyone out who we needed out.
I don't think the dogs thing is a negative either. The BBC news narrative implies that Johnson's team were so switched on they even got the stray animals back to Blighty before the window of opportunity closed.
Johnson has himself rather sensibly, kept his head down, so if it had gone/does go pear-shaped it wasn't on his watch. He delegated everything to Raab and Wallace.
As to the polls, free money and "Labour jabber, Conservatives jab" is still in the minds of the voters. No TV in Teeside, pricey petrol, and empty shelves may change that, but Afghanistan and dogs won't.
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
"votes" or "MSPs elected"?
The latter in this instance.
Because "votes" would be under 50%......(49% and 48.4% constituency/list respectively).
Yup, but I don't question the legitimacy of this government because it was only elected with fewer than 44% of the vote.
I'd also like to point out that the Holyrood system was designed to ensure no one party won a majority whereas at Westminster it is designed so a party can win a majority of seats on around 35% of the vote.
I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the government - just their request to do something outwith their competence. If they won on the basis of declaring war on France you'd support that too? (actually, don't answer that...)
But they are asking the ones who claim it is within their competence to decide, no?
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
"votes" or "MSPs elected"?
The latter in this instance.
Because "votes" would be under 50%......(49% and 48.4% constituency/list respectively).
Can we do the same for the Westminster elections? A majority voted against a Tory government in 2019. Add Labour SNP LibDem and Green together and its a far bigger vote than Tory and Brexit and UKIP.
The last 10 days have been a traumatic period for so many, not least our soldiers who are reportedly, in some cases, experiencing PTSD and I know the serious nature of this as my eldest son has been suffering for some years and at 55 is unlikely to work again
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve, and as the last aircraft lands back in the UK with our soldiers I for one just have a huge feeling of relief they are home and that we must never again involve ourselves in foreign wars
The political fallout is hard to judge but if labour cannot regain a poll lead now, when will they
I don't see much negative fallout for the Conservatives here at all. It was Biden's decision and we had to pull our people out in the event of the US leaving.The BBC news narrative has been one of, as of yesterday the UK had got everyone out who we needed out.
I don't think the dogs thing is a negative either. The BBC news narrative implies that Johnson's team were so switched on they even got the stray animals back to Blighty before the window of opportunity closed.
Johnson has himself rather sensibly, kept his head down, so if it had gone/does go pear-shaped it wasn't on his watch. He delegated everything to Raab and Wallace.
As to the polls, free money and "Labour jabber, Conservatives jab" is still in the minds of the voters. No TV in Teeside, pricey petrol, and empty shelves may change that, but Afghanistan and dogs won't.
The last 10 days have been a traumatic period for so many, not least our soldiers who are reportedly, in some cases, experiencing PTSD and I know the serious nature of this as my eldest son has been suffering for some years and at 55 is unlikely to work again
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve, and as the last aircraft lands back in the UK with our soldiers I for one just have a huge feeling of relief they are home and that we must never again involve ourselves in foreign wars
The political fallout is hard to judge but if labour cannot regain a poll lead now, when will they
I don't see much negative fallout for the Conservatives here at all. It was Biden's decision and we had to pull our people out in the event of the US leaving.The BBC news narrative has been one of, as of yesterday the UK had got everyone out who we needed out.
I don't think the dogs thing is a negative either. The BBC news narrative implies that Johnson's team were so switched on they even got the stray animals back to Blighty before the window of opportunity closed.
Johnson has himself rather sensibly, kept his head down, so if it had gone/does go pear-shaped it wasn't on his watch. He delegated everything to Raab and Wallace.
As to the polls, free money and "Labour jabber, Conservatives jab" is still in the minds of the voters. No TV in Teeside, pricey petrol, and empty shelves may change that, but Afghanistan and dogs won't.
No TV in Teesside? What's that about?
A fire at a TV mast in North Yorkshire, but don't worry if it is still down in mid-September everyone affected can apply for a licence discount (terms and conditions apply).
I see that the irrational hatred of Johnson has now resulted in a descent into outright clickbait.
"Irrational" by what definition?
Well, let’s start off with the obvious question. Why hate him? I’d hate Hitler and Stalin and Mao for the crimes they did but BJ? He is a fairly standard politician in a democracy.
I suspect a lot of the hatred has to do with the fact he seems to be a lot more in tune with many people than a lot on this site would want.
Two actually, the first of whom is Professor Susan Michie....
About (tomorrow) to meet with Grandson Two before he goes off to Uni for the first time in mid Sept. Grandparental advice.... avoid Freshers Week parties..... I don't think so. Need to give advice that's likely to be accepted. Guardian had a useful one yesterday; never buy a book that you can borrow from the library!
Did you explain the library is where non-drinkers go in order to download books off the web?
That if he does not understand something, he should ask his tutor, his mates, or watch a couple of video lectures from other universities?
We can assume he already knows how to revise with spaced repetition and active recall.
OK got one. At the start of every module, he should check how it will be examined – essays, MCQs, lab notebooks, thesis, whatever.
Always take some dirty washing home to mum so she feels appreciated, even if she pretends not to.
Don't fall behind. Don't join so many clubs there is no time left for study, but on the other hand, always say yes to new experiences.
And enjoy it. These should be the happiest days of his life.
Wise words. Especially the last two bits.
I would add though that they may not be and it is ok if they are not. I think a problem is the assumption that everyone is having an absolute ball all the time at uni. But they aren't and it is ok to admit it.
My own experience was there were plenty around me who, off and on, were finding it depressing, overwhelming, scary or lonely. Some had never been away from home before and struggled. In my case the 2nd year was difficult - living out of university accommodation in what was basically a freezing rat hole in a dark, cold northern winter. Definitely character building, but definitely not the happiest few months of my life.
The last 10 days have been a traumatic period for so many, not least our soldiers who are reportedly, in some cases, experiencing PTSD and I know the serious nature of this as my eldest son has been suffering for some years and at 55 is unlikely to work again
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve, and as the last aircraft lands back in the UK with our soldiers I for one just have a huge feeling of relief they are home and that we must never again involve ourselves in foreign wars
The political fallout is hard to judge but if labour cannot regain a poll lead now, when will they
I don't see much negative fallout for the Conservatives here at all. It was Biden's decision and we had to pull our people out in the event of the US leaving.The BBC news narrative has been one of, as of yesterday the UK had got everyone out who we needed out.
I don't think the dogs thing is a negative either. The BBC news narrative implies that Johnson's team were so switched on they even got the stray animals back to Blighty before the window of opportunity closed.
Johnson has himself rather sensibly, kept his head down, so if it had gone/does go pear-shaped it wasn't on his watch. He delegated everything to Raab and Wallace.
As to the polls, free money and "Labour jabber, Conservatives jab" is still in the minds of the voters. No TV in Teeside, pricey petrol, and empty shelves may change that, but Afghanistan and dogs won't.
No TV in Teesside? What's that about?
A fire at a TV mast in North Yorkshire, but don't worry if it is still down in mid-September everyone affected can apply for a licence discount (terms and conditions apply).
The last 10 days have been a traumatic period for so many, not least our soldiers who are reportedly, in some cases, experiencing PTSD and I know the serious nature of this as my eldest son has been suffering for some years and at 55 is unlikely to work again
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve, and as the last aircraft lands back in the UK with our soldiers I for one just have a huge feeling of relief they are home and that we must never again involve ourselves in foreign wars
The political fallout is hard to judge but if labour cannot regain a poll lead now, when will they
If the forces aren't going to engage in foreign wars, what are they for?
PTSD in veterans is quite an issue, but mental health services will always be crap. It always has been the cinderella of health care, and always will be.
My sons treatment in Canada has been abymisal and indeed they have no GP's now so go to A & E
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
"votes" or "MSPs elected"?
The latter in this instance.
Because "votes" would be under 50%......(49% and 48.4% constituency/list respectively).
Yup, but I don't question the legitimacy of this government because it was only elected with fewer than 44% of the vote.
I'd also like to point out that the Holyrood system was designed to ensure no one party won a majority whereas at Westminster it is designed so a party can win a majority of seats on around 35% of the vote.
Pro-independence *won a majority* up here. The Scottish Greens were as pro-referendum as the SNP and just to reinforce the point have now gone into government with them.
It isn't what I voted for. But the democratic will of the Scottish people is clear. England twatting about in this way only results in a yes vote next time - vote to get out because you can't trust Westminster.
I see that the irrational hatred of Johnson has now resulted in a descent into outright clickbait.
"Irrational" by what definition?
OK, fair point. There are perfectly rational reasons to hate Johnson, but given the extent to which it is now clouding judgment of previously much more objective and reasonable commenters, I am asserting that it's reached irrational levels.
The comments from the Scottish Secretary simply do not justify the headline. Even the Daily Mirror would be embarrassed to pretend that they did.
The Scottish Secretary just negated the results of the 2021 Holyrood Elections.
People voted in record numbers and elected a record number of MSPs pledged to a 2nd referendum. For him to say "you can't have it, you need 60%" is to tell Scotland their votes don't count.
Feels like it justifies the headline to me. Then again its our votes that have just been negated. Perhaps you don't see the problem as your vote was respected in 2019.
Conversely, to agree to one would be to tell Scots who voted No in 2014 that their votes didn't count.
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
"votes" or "MSPs elected"?
The latter in this instance.
Because "votes" would be under 50%......(49% and 48.4% constituency/list respectively).
Yup, but I don't question the legitimacy of this government because it was only elected with fewer than 44% of the vote.
I'd also like to point out that the Holyrood system was designed to ensure no one party won a majority whereas at Westminster it is designed so a party can win a majority of seats on around 35% of the vote.
I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the government - just their request to do something outwith their competence. If they won on the basis of declaring war on France you'd support that too? (actually, don't answer that...)
They are asking the UK government to listen to the will of the Scottish people.
My fear is the longer the UK government says no then it just ensures Scotland does eventually decide to vote to leave the UK.
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
Not my area but pretty much. For most of the Cold War period the RN were an ASW navy. Even the Invincible class carriers were conceived for the 'Hack the Shad' mission. ie chase Mays and Bears away from the ASW force.
By the 2000s the emphasis had very much shifted to out-of-area expeditionary warfare. Only 8 of the T23s got a sonar upgrade. None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped. The T26s will have sonar but no ASW weapon other than the helicopter. If the ship is out of limits for aviation or the helicopter's broken - hard luck - no sub hunting that day.
The risk is that this, once again, gives Scotland the worst of all worlds. In the neverendum that was the run up to 2014 we had years of economic paralysis and uncertainty. We face the same again but it would be worse this time because of the SM UK/SM EU divide. We really cannot afford to have years of people not knowing if we would have free trade with rUK or not, what currency we are going to trade in, what it is going to be worth, etc. These uncertainties have real world costs. My view is that this 60% nonsense is a mistake. Sturgeon should be offered a referendum but not at the time of her choosing or contrivance. And it should be soon or not at all.
The big change is the post-Brexit settlement. If "membership of the UK means free trade with the UK" then how do we explain NI? There is no longer even a UK trading area. You cannot say that membership of the UK means free trade within it because that is factually untrue.
As I keep saying, Boris's abolition of the UK trade zone will be a massive issue in the coming referendum. I do agree with you David that Scotland shouldn't get to choose when. You and I didn't vote for pro-referendum parties but a majority of MSPs were elected on that platform. So get on with it already. No will win, won't it...?
I see that the irrational hatred of Johnson has now resulted in a descent into outright clickbait.
"Irrational" by what definition?
OK, fair point. There are perfectly rational reasons to hate Johnson, but given the extent to which it is now clouding judgment of previously much more objective and reasonable commenters, I am asserting that it's reached irrational levels.
The comments from the Scottish Secretary simply do not justify the headline. Even the Daily Mirror would be embarrassed to pretend that they did.
The Scottish Secretary just negated the results of the 2021 Holyrood Elections.
People voted in record numbers and elected a record number of MSPs pledged to a 2nd referendum. For him to say "you can't have it, you need 60%" is to tell Scotland their votes don't count.
Feels like it justifies the headline to me. Then again its our votes that have just been negated. Perhaps you don't see the problem as your vote was respected in 2019.
Conversely, to agree to one would be to tell Scots who voted No in 2014 that their votes didn't count.
Electorates have the right to change their mind.
Here's a scenario for you.
2016 - The UK votes to Remain in the EU.
UKGE 2025 - A Boris Johnson led Tory party puts in its manifesto to leave the EU by 2029 (without the need for a referendum) and wins a landslide.
Would you be arguing the same? Unlikely, this is democracy.
I see that the irrational hatred of Johnson has now resulted in a descent into outright clickbait.
"Irrational" by what definition?
OK, fair point. There are perfectly rational reasons to hate Johnson, but given the extent to which it is now clouding judgment of previously much more objective and reasonable commenters, I am asserting that it's reached irrational levels.
The comments from the Scottish Secretary simply do not justify the headline. Even the Daily Mirror would be embarrassed to pretend that they did.
The Scottish Secretary just negated the results of the 2021 Holyrood Elections.
People voted in record numbers and elected a record number of MSPs pledged to a 2nd referendum. For him to say "you can't have it, you need 60%" is to tell Scotland their votes don't count.
Feels like it justifies the headline to me. Then again its our votes that have just been negated. Perhaps you don't see the problem as your vote was respected in 2019.
Conversely, to agree to one would be to tell Scots who voted No in 2014 that their votes didn't count.
Times change. Apparently a voluntary referendum in the 2015 parliament overruled the votes of people in the 2017 parliament. So your vote counts only as long as the next vote, and even then only if some people care to listen.
The 60% figure was chosen by the government precisely because there is zero chance of it ever being met. In fact not only is No back ahead in most polls, Yes are not above 50% in any poll since the 2021 Holyrood election, let alone 60%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence
So the UK government can and will refuse an indyref2 and as union matters are reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 there is nothing the SNP can do about it. Even a wildcat referendum would have no bearing on the union as Westminster could ignore the result as Madrid did with the Catalan wildcat referendum.
Hence too Sturgeon and the Greens have said they do not want an indyref2 now but within 5 years, which the polling suggests a narrow plurality of Scots favour. Ideally Sturgeon has put the end of 2023 as the time, which conveniently would be past the likely next UK general election date of Spring or Autumn 2023. That is because if Starmer becomes UK PM Sturgeon knows he would be more willing to grant an indyref2 than Boris without a 60% threshold, especially if reliant on SNP confidence and supply.
So forget about indyref2 before the next UK general election and expect more Nationalist hardliners to move from SNP to Alba in frustration in the meantime
Isn't it 60 per cent in favour of a referendum, not 60 per cent in favour of independence? David Cameron was in favour of a referendum on leaving the European Union.
70% want a referendum on the future of NI it seems.
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
Not my area but pretty much. For most of the Cold War period the RN were an ASW navy. Even the Invincible class carriers were conceived for the 'Hack the Shad' mission. ie chase Mays and Bears away from the ASW force.
By the 2000s the emphasis had very much shifted to out-of-area expeditionary warfare. Only 8 of the T23s got a sonar upgrade. None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped. The T26s will have sonar but no ASW weapon other than the helicopter. If the ship is out of limits for aviation or the helicopter's broken - hard luck - no sub hunting that day.
"None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped."
Must be the first RN escorts to be in that state since, when, 1920s?!
The risk is that this, once again, gives Scotland the worst of all worlds. In the neverendum that was the run up to 2014 we had years of economic paralysis and uncertainty. We face the same again but it would be worse this time because of the SM UK/SM EU divide. We really cannot afford to have years of people not knowing if we would have free trade with rUK or not, what currency we are going to trade in, what it is going to be worth, etc. These uncertainties have real world costs. My view is that this 60% nonsense is a mistake. Sturgeon should be offered a referendum but not at the time of her choosing or contrivance. And it should be soon or not at all.
The big change is the post-Brexit settlement. If "membership of the UK means free trade with the UK" then how do we explain NI? There is no longer even a UK trading area. You cannot say that membership of the UK means free trade within it because that is factually untrue.
As I keep saying, Boris's abolition of the UK trade zone will be a massive issue in the coming referendum. I do agree with you David that Scotland shouldn't get to choose when. You and I didn't vote for pro-referendum parties but a majority of MSPs were elected on that platform. So get on with it already. No will win, won't it...?
Yes, no will win and I personally think that it will not be as close as the last time (which wasn't that close, actually). But I agree with you that what could swing it is a lack of respect for the democratic process. I am not that interested in the majority in Holyrood because that is a factor of the fragmented Unionist vote but when you add up the votes for parties committed to a referendum they won, just. I think we need to do this and then we can move on.
I see that the irrational hatred of Johnson has now resulted in a descent into outright clickbait.
"Irrational" by what definition?
OK, fair point. There are perfectly rational reasons to hate Johnson, but given the extent to which it is now clouding judgment of previously much more objective and reasonable commenters, I am asserting that it's reached irrational levels.
The comments from the Scottish Secretary simply do not justify the headline. Even the Daily Mirror would be embarrassed to pretend that they did.
The Scottish Secretary just negated the results of the 2021 Holyrood Elections.
People voted in record numbers and elected a record number of MSPs pledged to a 2nd referendum. For him to say "you can't have it, you need 60%" is to tell Scotland their votes don't count.
Feels like it justifies the headline to me. Then again its our votes that have just been negated. Perhaps you don't see the problem as your vote was respected in 2019.
Conversely, to agree to one would be to tell Scots who voted No in 2014 that their votes didn't count.
Times change. Apparently a voluntary referendum in the 2015 parliament overruled the votes of people in the 2017 parliament. So your vote counts only as long as the next vote, and even then only if some people care to listen.
Your argument seems to be that a second wrong would somehow produce a right, which I'm sure is not what you intended.
Either way, without wanting to go down the rabbit hole of who said and meant what and when, all sides in 2014 signed up to the "once in a generation" thing. For Jack to say that getting to 60% in favour of a referendum (note: not in favour of independence, just for another chance at getting it) would override that, is a not insignificant concession. I cannot see how a reasonable person would see that as "opinion polls more important that actual votes".
Can’t Westminster just pass an act for Scottish Independence now? Devolution doesn’t work, federalism probably won’t work, going beck to the status quo ante 1998 is politically unacceptable which leaves dissolving the Union the only logical next step. It’s a damaging Union for all parties.
Federalism might well work.
Probably not, and it is unlikely to be tried either. Everyone can appreciate that the devolution settlement is a mess that wholly satisfies almost no-one, but the overriding aim of the pro-Union parties at Westminster is (from their point of view) to avoid making a bad situation even worse.
The problem with federalism is that you either create an English Parliament - in which case, there's a tremendous risk of an actual ENP emerging and finishing Britain off from the centre - or you try to cut England up into (mostly artificial) regions, which then means that Westminster has a dozen or more constantly aggrieved devolved First Ministers to deal with instead of just three.
From the point of view of the Unionists, the least worst option is to leave things more-or-less as they are, and to try to make it too scary for voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to leave - primarily by throwing vast amounts of money at them, and therefore inviting them to contemplate how they would cope without it.
Couple of points. On Federalism. An English parliament remains the missing link in the constitutional settlement. Yes it would be large and unwieldy compared to the other parliaments but the English block in Westminster already does that. If England then wants regional devolution thats up to them - a matter for their new parliament.
On throwing money at us - fat chance. England isn't about to throw money at England so there is no chance of it being flung across the wall or across the water.
On the English Parliament: it might not pump rocket fuel into a populist independence movement, but I wouldn't count on it. Look at Holyrood.
On the money: the devolved administrations are already heavily subsidised by Westminster. In the Scottish case, the GERS figures tell us this. If you're moving towards the denialist camp on this then there's no point in my trying to convince you otherwise, but it is what it is.
All of the UK is currently heavily subsidised by our grandchildren.
I see that the irrational hatred of Johnson has now resulted in a descent into outright clickbait.
"Irrational" by what definition?
OK, fair point. There are perfectly rational reasons to hate Johnson, but given the extent to which it is now clouding judgment of previously much more objective and reasonable commenters, I am asserting that it's reached irrational levels.
The comments from the Scottish Secretary simply do not justify the headline. Even the Daily Mirror would be embarrassed to pretend that they did.
The Scottish Secretary just negated the results of the 2021 Holyrood Elections.
People voted in record numbers and elected a record number of MSPs pledged to a 2nd referendum. For him to say "you can't have it, you need 60%" is to tell Scotland their votes don't count.
Feels like it justifies the headline to me. Then again its our votes that have just been negated. Perhaps you don't see the problem as your vote was respected in 2019.
Conversely, to agree to one would be to tell Scots who voted No in 2014 that their votes didn't count.
Electorates have the right to change their mind.
Here's a scenario for you.
2016 - The UK votes to Remain in the EU.
UKGE 2025 - A Boris Johnson led Tory party puts in its manifesto to leave the EU by 2029 (without the need for a referendum) and wins a landslide.
Would you be arguing the same? Unlikely, this is democracy.
We don't even need the fiction. The 2015 election mandated a referendum which voted leave. The 2017 election produced a parliament unwilling to back the form of leave (or indeed any option) which had been backed in the 2015 parliament.
We then had the grotesque spectacle of the mandate of 2017 being described as undemocratic, the MPs and judges ruling on the primacy of [the elected in 2017] parliament described as "traitors".
In our system the democratic mandate is for that parliament. Whatever that parliament enacts is for that parliament to decide, its hands are not bound by its predecessors. The Brexit vote broke the principle of parliamentary democracy so no wonder the SofS wants an extra-parliamentary poll to overrule the democratic will.
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
To someone who has a seriously ill son with PTSD and the crisis facing our soldiers your comment, even in jest, is not helpful
It's 100% true and exactly what happened to me when I was a mute and shivering wreck in the CO's office.
I offer it as an example of the 'care' the returning service personnel can expect.
I am genuinely sorry for your personal experience but it is an area that needs much more investment, and judging by my sons experience, not just here but in Canada as well
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
Not my area but pretty much. For most of the Cold War period the RN were an ASW navy. Even the Invincible class carriers were conceived for the 'Hack the Shad' mission. ie chase Mays and Bears away from the ASW force.
By the 2000s the emphasis had very much shifted to out-of-area expeditionary warfare. Only 8 of the T23s got a sonar upgrade. None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped. The T26s will have sonar but no ASW weapon other than the helicopter. If the ship is out of limits for aviation or the helicopter's broken - hard luck - no sub hunting that day.
"None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped."
Must be the first RN escorts to be in that state since, when, 1920s?!
How can they even be escorts without sonar? I thought that their primary purpose was supposed to be keeping subs away from the carriers? This is bizarre.
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
"votes" or "MSPs elected"?
The latter in this instance.
Because "votes" would be under 50%......(49% and 48.4% constituency/list respectively).
Yup, but I don't question the legitimacy of this government because it was only elected with fewer than 44% of the vote.
I'd also like to point out that the Holyrood system was designed to ensure no one party won a majority whereas at Westminster it is designed so a party can win a majority of seats on around 35% of the vote.
I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the government - just their request to do something outwith their competence. If they won on the basis of declaring war on France you'd support that too? (actually, don't answer that...)
They are asking the UK government to listen to the will of the Scottish people.
My fear is the longer the UK government says no then it just ensures Scotland does eventually decide to vote to leave the UK.
Do the SNP feel there would be more support for independence with the Tories in power in Westminster rather than Labour? And so it's more important to push for one now.
Johnson must be easier to paint as a villain than Starmer.
The risk is that this, once again, gives Scotland the worst of all worlds. In the neverendum that was the run up to 2014 we had years of economic paralysis and uncertainty. We face the same again but it would be worse this time because of the SM UK/SM EU divide. We really cannot afford to have years of people not knowing if we would have free trade with rUK or not, what currency we are going to trade in, what it is going to be worth, etc. These uncertainties have real world costs. My view is that this 60% nonsense is a mistake. Sturgeon should be offered a referendum but not at the time of her choosing or contrivance. And it should be soon or not at all.
The big change is the post-Brexit settlement. If "membership of the UK means free trade with the UK" then how do we explain NI? There is no longer even a UK trading area. You cannot say that membership of the UK means free trade within it because that is factually untrue.
As I keep saying, Boris's abolition of the UK trade zone will be a massive issue in the coming referendum. I do agree with you David that Scotland shouldn't get to choose when. You and I didn't vote for pro-referendum parties but a majority of MSPs were elected on that platform. So get on with it already. No will win, won't it...?
Yes, no will win and I personally think that it will not be as close as the last time (which wasn't that close, actually). But I agree with you that what could swing it is a lack of respect for the democratic process. I am not that interested in the majority in Holyrood because that is a factor of the fragmented Unionist vote but when you add up the votes for parties committed to a referendum they won, just. I think we need to do this and then we can move on.
We agree on a lot. With regards to the "majority in Holyrood" being due to a "fragmented unionist vote" would you like to play the same game for Westminster? More people voted for Remain parties than Leave parties in 2019. Using your "add up the votes" principle and Jeremy Corbyn is PM heading a government backed by the SNP and LibDems.
We have a system of parliamentary democracy. We have two different electoral systems but those are the systems. The result is the result or we have nothing. Just as your party won a majority off a minority vote in Westminster, the forces for independence won a majority for that off a (just about) minority vote in Holyrood.
You cannot support the primacy of one and deny the primacy of the other.
"Had a five minute lecture by someone on what PTSD is and then 25 crates of beer were thrown through the door and that was it..."
That said when one of my soldiers went rogue after an NI deployment, hijacked a car in Surrey at gunpoint, drove it to a field, fell asleep, and woke up shouting you Irish bastards as he was surrounded by armed police, the Crown Court judge accepted PTSD as a contributory factor and he got off.
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
"votes" or "MSPs elected"?
The latter in this instance.
Because "votes" would be under 50%......(49% and 48.4% constituency/list respectively).
Yup, but I don't question the legitimacy of this government because it was only elected with fewer than 44% of the vote.
I'd also like to point out that the Holyrood system was designed to ensure no one party won a majority whereas at Westminster it is designed so a party can win a majority of seats on around 35% of the vote.
I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the government - just their request to do something outwith their competence. If they won on the basis of declaring war on France you'd support that too? (actually, don't answer that...)
They are asking the UK government to listen to the will of the Scottish people.
My fear is the longer the UK government says no then it just ensures Scotland does eventually decide to vote to leave the UK.
Do the SNP feel there would be more support for independence with the Tories in power in Westminster rather than Labour? And so it's more important to push for one now.
Johnson must be easier to paint as a villain than Starmer.
Yes and No.
Back in 2014 I knew a few people working for Yes and they said their focus groups and polls tried to see what having the Tories in power would do.
The result was even Yes voters didn't mind having David Cameron as PM, whilst they might disagree with him on politics, they saw a nice family man who they couldn't hate.
So that's why Yes didn't focus heavily on the occupant of Downing Street.
I see that the irrational hatred of Johnson has now resulted in a descent into outright clickbait.
"Irrational" by what definition?
OK, fair point. There are perfectly rational reasons to hate Johnson, but given the extent to which it is now clouding judgment of previously much more objective and reasonable commenters, I am asserting that it's reached irrational levels.
The comments from the Scottish Secretary simply do not justify the headline. Even the Daily Mirror would be embarrassed to pretend that they did.
The Scottish Secretary just negated the results of the 2021 Holyrood Elections.
People voted in record numbers and elected a record number of MSPs pledged to a 2nd referendum. For him to say "you can't have it, you need 60%" is to tell Scotland their votes don't count.
Feels like it justifies the headline to me. Then again its our votes that have just been negated. Perhaps you don't see the problem as your vote was respected in 2019.
Conversely, to agree to one would be to tell Scots who voted No in 2014 that their votes didn't count.
Electorates have the right to change their mind.
Here's a scenario for you.
2016 - The UK votes to Remain in the EU.
UKGE 2025 - A Boris Johnson led Tory party puts in its manifesto to leave the EU by 2029 (without the need for a referendum) and wins a landslide.
Would you be arguing the same? Unlikely, this is democracy.
If the SNP have the balls to put UDI in their next manifesto and win a majority off the back of it, I'll certainly not stand in their way.
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
Not my area but pretty much. For most of the Cold War period the RN were an ASW navy. Even the Invincible class carriers were conceived for the 'Hack the Shad' mission. ie chase Mays and Bears away from the ASW force.
By the 2000s the emphasis had very much shifted to out-of-area expeditionary warfare. Only 8 of the T23s got a sonar upgrade. None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped. The T26s will have sonar but no ASW weapon other than the helicopter. If the ship is out of limits for aviation or the helicopter's broken - hard luck - no sub hunting that day.
"None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped."
Must be the first RN escorts to be in that state since, when, 1920s?!
How can they even be escorts without sonar? I thought that their primary purpose was supposed to be keeping subs away from the carriers? This is bizarre.
AIUI they are anti-air escorts though the weapons fit fide Wiki suggests also used for imperial gunboat duties:
Up to 24 cells VLS Sea Ceptor anti-air missiles[8] 1 × 57 mm Mk 110 main gun 2 × 40 mm Mk 4 secondary guns 4 × 7.62 mm General purpose machine guns 4 × 7.62 mm Miniguns
Aircraft carried
1 × Wildcat, or 1 × Merlin,
No fixed sonar, no variable deoth sonar, no fixed torpedo tubes for antisubmarine torpedoes, no mention of rocket-lofted torpedoes, etc. Presumably they just hope therew are enough of the 8 Type 26 to be had on the day.
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
Not my area but pretty much. For most of the Cold War period the RN were an ASW navy. Even the Invincible class carriers were conceived for the 'Hack the Shad' mission. ie chase Mays and Bears away from the ASW force.
By the 2000s the emphasis had very much shifted to out-of-area expeditionary warfare. Only 8 of the T23s got a sonar upgrade. None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped. The T26s will have sonar but no ASW weapon other than the helicopter. If the ship is out of limits for aviation or the helicopter's broken - hard luck - no sub hunting that day.
"None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped."
Must be the first RN escorts to be in that state since, when, 1920s?!
How can they even be escorts without sonar? I thought that their primary purpose was supposed to be keeping subs away from the carriers? This is bizarre.
AIUI they are anti-air escorts though the weapons fit fide Wiki suggests also used for imperial gunboat duties:
Up to 24 cells VLS Sea Ceptor anti-air missiles[8] 1 × 57 mm Mk 110 main gun 2 × 40 mm Mk 4 secondary guns 4 × 7.62 mm General purpose machine guns 4 × 7.62 mm Miniguns
Aircraft carried
1 × Wildcat, or 1 × Merlin,
No fixed sonar, no variable deoth sonar, no fixed torpedo tubes for antisubmarine torpedoes, no mention of rocket-lofted torpedoes, etc. Presumably they just hope therew are enough of the 8 Type 26 to be had on the day.
There is a lack of joined up thinking and then there is the RN. What's the betting that these specs were laid down at a time when we thought there would not be carriers to protect?
Delay in acting was 'unfathomable', says former Army chief
A former head of the British Army has said it was "unfathomable why it would appear that the Government was asleep on watch" in relation to the protection of Afghans who helped soldiers and officials.
Speaking on Times Radio, General Lord Richard Dannatt said: "On the particular issue of those who we knew were in danger, people who had worked for us, interpreters, former locally-engaged civilians, this issue has been in the media.
"This issue has been on politicians' desks for two to three years and, certainly, it's been there during the course of this year."
He pointed out that in July, 45 senior officers wrote an open letter to the Government warning of complacency.
"I think the issue of Afghanistan sat on the backburner... We should have done better, we could have done better. It absolutely behoves us to find out why the Government didn't spark up faster."
Such is the strange new phase of Britain’s pandemic: The public has moved on, even if the virus has not. Given that Britain has been at the vanguard of so many previous coronavirus developments — from incubating variants to rolling out vaccines — experts say this could be a glimpse into the future for other countries.
"Devi Sridhar, the head of the global public health program at the University of Edinburgh. “It’s really difficult to ask people not to mix for a prolonged period, especially if there is no solution.” "
Honestly, the sheer chutzpah of some of these experts is breathtaking. iirc Sridhar was the leading exponent of zerocovid and complete shutdown.
She was when Scotland had fewer cases than in England.
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
"votes" or "MSPs elected"?
The latter in this instance.
Because "votes" would be under 50%......(49% and 48.4% constituency/list respectively).
Yup, but I don't question the legitimacy of this government because it was only elected with fewer than 44% of the vote.
I'd also like to point out that the Holyrood system was designed to ensure no one party won a majority whereas at Westminster it is designed so a party can win a majority of seats on around 35% of the vote.
I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the government - just their request to do something outwith their competence. If they won on the basis of declaring war on France you'd support that too? (actually, don't answer that...)
They are asking the UK government to listen to the will of the Scottish people.
My fear is the longer the UK government says no then it just ensures Scotland does eventually decide to vote to leave the UK.
Do the SNP feel there would be more support for independence with the Tories in power in Westminster rather than Labour? And so it's more important to push for one now.
Johnson must be easier to paint as a villain than Starmer.
Yes and No.
Back in 2014 I knew a few people working for Yes and they said their focus groups and polls tried to see what having the Tories in power would do.
The result was even Yes voters didn't mind having David Cameron as PM, whilst they might disagree with him on politics, they saw a nice family man who they couldn't hate.
So that's why Yes didn't focus heavily on the occupant of Downing Street.
Now Boris Johnson is another story,
This seems a different campaign from the one I was involved in which was all about Tory Austerity that Scotland didn't vote for and how public services were going to be better funded in an independent Scotland. Having Tories in Downing Street but with fairly minimal representation in Scotland was a central plank of Salmond's campaign and the reason that Darling ended up fronting Better Together.
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
Not my area but pretty much. For most of the Cold War period the RN were an ASW navy. Even the Invincible class carriers were conceived for the 'Hack the Shad' mission. ie chase Mays and Bears away from the ASW force.
By the 2000s the emphasis had very much shifted to out-of-area expeditionary warfare. Only 8 of the T23s got a sonar upgrade. None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped. The T26s will have sonar but no ASW weapon other than the helicopter. If the ship is out of limits for aviation or the helicopter's broken - hard luck - no sub hunting that day.
"None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped."
Must be the first RN escorts to be in that state since, when, 1920s?!
How can they even be escorts without sonar? I thought that their primary purpose was supposed to be keeping subs away from the carriers? This is bizarre.
AIUI they are anti-air escorts though the weapons fit fide Wiki suggests also used for imperial gunboat duties:
Up to 24 cells VLS Sea Ceptor anti-air missiles[8] 1 × 57 mm Mk 110 main gun 2 × 40 mm Mk 4 secondary guns 4 × 7.62 mm General purpose machine guns 4 × 7.62 mm Miniguns
Aircraft carried
1 × Wildcat, or 1 × Merlin,
No fixed sonar, no variable deoth sonar, no fixed torpedo tubes for antisubmarine torpedoes, no mention of rocket-lofted torpedoes, etc. Presumably they just hope therew are enough of the 8 Type 26 to be had on the day.
There is a lack of joined up thinking and then there is the RN. What's the betting that these specs were laid down at a time when we thought there would not be carriers to protect?
MoD surely is the problem.
From Wiki the critical decision seems to have been at the 2015 Defence Review. The carriers were planned and contracted more than a decade before - and the first launched even before the DR.
The last 10 days have been a traumatic period for so many, not least our soldiers who are reportedly, in some cases, experiencing PTSD and I know the serious nature of this as my eldest son has been suffering for some years and at 55 is unlikely to work again
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve, and as the last aircraft lands back in the UK with our soldiers I for one just have a huge feeling of relief they are home and that we must never again involve ourselves in foreign wars
The political fallout is hard to judge but if labour cannot regain a poll lead now, when will they
If the forces aren't going to engage in foreign wars, what are they for?
PTSD in veterans is quite an issue, but mental health services will always be crap. It always has been the cinderella of health care, and always will be.
My sons treatment in Canada has been abymisal and indeed they have no GP's now so go to A & E
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
Not my area but pretty much. For most of the Cold War period the RN were an ASW navy. Even the Invincible class carriers were conceived for the 'Hack the Shad' mission. ie chase Mays and Bears away from the ASW force.
By the 2000s the emphasis had very much shifted to out-of-area expeditionary warfare. Only 8 of the T23s got a sonar upgrade. None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped. The T26s will have sonar but no ASW weapon other than the helicopter. If the ship is out of limits for aviation or the helicopter's broken - hard luck - no sub hunting that day.
"None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped."
Must be the first RN escorts to be in that state since, when, 1920s?!
How can they even be escorts without sonar? I thought that their primary purpose was supposed to be keeping subs away from the carriers? This is bizarre.
Just checking on Type 23s.
AIUI Type 23 had a bow mounted sonar (ie a dome) plus a towed array, and only 8 out of 13 were upgraded to the improved towed array sonar.
How is using the criteria of opinion polls any different from the triggers required for a Ireland border poll?
Because 1) They don't use polls as the sole factor and 2) This proposal is saying opinion polls carry more weight than actual votes.
"votes" or "MSPs elected"?
The latter in this instance.
Because "votes" would be under 50%......(49% and 48.4% constituency/list respectively).
Yup, but I don't question the legitimacy of this government because it was only elected with fewer than 44% of the vote.
I'd also like to point out that the Holyrood system was designed to ensure no one party won a majority whereas at Westminster it is designed so a party can win a majority of seats on around 35% of the vote.
I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the government - just their request to do something outwith their competence. If they won on the basis of declaring war on France you'd support that too? (actually, don't answer that...)
They are asking the UK government to listen to the will of the Scottish people.
My fear is the longer the UK government says no then it just ensures Scotland does eventually decide to vote to leave the UK.
Do the SNP feel there would be more support for independence with the Tories in power in Westminster rather than Labour? And so it's more important to push for one now.
Johnson must be easier to paint as a villain than Starmer.
Yes and No.
Back in 2014 I knew a few people working for Yes and they said their focus groups and polls tried to see what having the Tories in power would do.
The result was even Yes voters didn't mind having David Cameron as PM, whilst they might disagree with him on politics, they saw a nice family man who they couldn't hate.
So that's why Yes didn't focus heavily on the occupant of Downing Street.
Now Boris Johnson is another story,
This seems a different campaign from the one I was involved in which was all about Tory Austerity that Scotland didn't vote for and how public services were going to be better funded in an independent Scotland. Having Tories in Downing Street but with fairly minimal representation in Scotland was a central plank of Salmond's campaign and the reason that Darling ended up fronting Better Together.
Can’t Westminster just pass an act for Scottish Independence now? Devolution doesn’t work, federalism probably won’t work, going beck to the status quo ante 1998 is politically unacceptable which leaves dissolving the Union the only logical next step. It’s a damaging Union for all parties.
It’s all about which option is least damaging currently for the Tory party, or the bunch of short-sighted, self interested incompetents that now go under that name. Being cowards also, grabbing the bull by the horns is the last thing they’ll do.
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
Not my area but pretty much. For most of the Cold War period the RN were an ASW navy. Even the Invincible class carriers were conceived for the 'Hack the Shad' mission. ie chase Mays and Bears away from the ASW force.
By the 2000s the emphasis had very much shifted to out-of-area expeditionary warfare. Only 8 of the T23s got a sonar upgrade. None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped. The T26s will have sonar but no ASW weapon other than the helicopter. If the ship is out of limits for aviation or the helicopter's broken - hard luck - no sub hunting that day.
"None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped."
Must be the first RN escorts to be in that state since, when, 1920s?!
How can they even be escorts without sonar? I thought that their primary purpose was supposed to be keeping subs away from the carriers? This is bizarre.
Just checking.
AIUI Type 23 had a bow mounted sonar (ie a dome) plus a towed array, and only 8 out of 13 were upgraded to the improved towed array sonar.
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
Not my area but pretty much. For most of the Cold War period the RN were an ASW navy. Even the Invincible class carriers were conceived for the 'Hack the Shad' mission. ie chase Mays and Bears away from the ASW force.
By the 2000s the emphasis had very much shifted to out-of-area expeditionary warfare. Only 8 of the T23s got a sonar upgrade. None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped. The T26s will have sonar but no ASW weapon other than the helicopter. If the ship is out of limits for aviation or the helicopter's broken - hard luck - no sub hunting that day.
"None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped."
Must be the first RN escorts to be in that state since, when, 1920s?!
How can they even be escorts without sonar? I thought that their primary purpose was supposed to be keeping subs away from the carriers? This is bizarre.
AIUI they are anti-air escorts though the weapons fit fide Wiki suggests also used for imperial gunboat duties:
Up to 24 cells VLS Sea Ceptor anti-air missiles[8] 1 × 57 mm Mk 110 main gun 2 × 40 mm Mk 4 secondary guns 4 × 7.62 mm General purpose machine guns 4 × 7.62 mm Miniguns
Aircraft carried
1 × Wildcat, or 1 × Merlin,
No fixed sonar, no variable deoth sonar, no fixed torpedo tubes for antisubmarine torpedoes, no mention of rocket-lofted torpedoes, etc. Presumably they just hope therew are enough of the 8 Type 26 to be had on the day.
That doesn't seem to be much equipment for a 5,700t ship.
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
Not my area but pretty much. For most of the Cold War period the RN were an ASW navy. Even the Invincible class carriers were conceived for the 'Hack the Shad' mission. ie chase Mays and Bears away from the ASW force.
By the 2000s the emphasis had very much shifted to out-of-area expeditionary warfare. Only 8 of the T23s got a sonar upgrade. None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped. The T26s will have sonar but no ASW weapon other than the helicopter. If the ship is out of limits for aviation or the helicopter's broken - hard luck - no sub hunting that day.
"None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped."
Must be the first RN escorts to be in that state since, when, 1920s?!
How can they even be escorts without sonar? I thought that their primary purpose was supposed to be keeping subs away from the carriers? This is bizarre.
Just checking on Type 23s.
AIUI Type 23 had a bow mounted sonar (ie a dome) plus a towed array, and only 8 out of 13 were upgraded to the improved towed array sonar.
Correct?
What I don't understand is that if the French and others think that their standard modern frigate (FREMM) has to have a huge towed sonar and ASW torpedo tubes and a big helicopter as well as the guns and missiles, why not the MoD? Allegedly the idea of the spec was to make sure that the T31 was not built on the Clyde (don't look at me like that: it's what Wiki says) but whether that has anything to do with the loss of sonar I have no idea.
I see that the irrational hatred of Johnson has now resulted in a descent into outright clickbait.
"Irrational" by what definition?
Well, let’s start off with the obvious question. Why hate him? I’d hate Hitler and Stalin and Mao for the crimes they did but BJ? He is a fairly standard politician in a democracy.
I suspect a lot of the hatred has to do with the fact he seems to be a lot more in tune with many people than a lot on this site would want.
I don't think he's widely-hated. He irritates a lot of people (including some Tories) who feel he wings his way across chaotic policies and gets away with it by nonchalance. Issue-focused political types find that tiresome, but not hateful. The policies themselves are not as bad from a centre-left viewpoint as they would be from a mainstream dry Tory like Sunak. As we may find out in due course.
I hope they all receive the mental health care they deserve
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
Morning, DA. Just been reading my Warship 2021 annual (birthday pressie from Mrs C). Usual historical stuff, but I was very surprised by an article on RN sonar and antisubmarine warfare since WW2 that ended my reckoning that RN ASW in the critical home waters and North Atlantic had almost completely atrophied for lack of kit, practice, and staff, and an overemphasis on out of area and Middle East ops. Does that sound right to you?
Not my area but pretty much. For most of the Cold War period the RN were an ASW navy. Even the Invincible class carriers were conceived for the 'Hack the Shad' mission. ie chase Mays and Bears away from the ASW force.
By the 2000s the emphasis had very much shifted to out-of-area expeditionary warfare. Only 8 of the T23s got a sonar upgrade. None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped. The T26s will have sonar but no ASW weapon other than the helicopter. If the ship is out of limits for aviation or the helicopter's broken - hard luck - no sub hunting that day.
"None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped."
Must be the first RN escorts to be in that state since, when, 1920s?!
How can they even be escorts without sonar? I thought that their primary purpose was supposed to be keeping subs away from the carriers? This is bizarre.
AIUI they are anti-air escorts though the weapons fit fide Wiki suggests also used for imperial gunboat duties:
Up to 24 cells VLS Sea Ceptor anti-air missiles[8] 1 × 57 mm Mk 110 main gun 2 × 40 mm Mk 4 secondary guns 4 × 7.62 mm General purpose machine guns 4 × 7.62 mm Miniguns
Aircraft carried
1 × Wildcat, or 1 × Merlin,
No fixed sonar, no variable deoth sonar, no fixed torpedo tubes for antisubmarine torpedoes, no mention of rocket-lofted torpedoes, etc. Presumably they just hope therew are enough of the 8 Type 26 to be had on the day.
That doesn't seem to be much equipment for a 5,700t ship.
Section 345 of the Fiscal Year 22 Intelligence Authorisation Act requires the Sec Def and National Intelligence Director to make any new data on UAP immediately available to the UAP Taskforce.
Thereupon the UAP Taskforce must submit a new report to Congress every 90 days (classified natch) detailing any new data, specifically including any data that predates 90 days but has not yet been disclosed to Congress.
The first report was largely a Navy effort and received no cooperation from either the CIA or US Air Force. This legislation in theory compels their cooperation going forwards. Let’s see. The Air Force classified archives no doubt have a treasure trove of anomalous data going back to the 40s.
Further, Lue Elizondo has been asked why the UAP topic has been so quiet since the report was published. He said words to the effect that he and others have the capability to dial up and down the media heat as required. For now they have achieved their first goal, of forcing the issue formally onto the executive and legislative agenda for further investigation and insight. Elizondo himself had resigned his post as head of the Taskforce because he was forbidden by chain of command from escalating his findings to Matthis.
He claims there is now serious work being done behind the scenes at governmental level and that process now needs to play out. But there are more bullets in reserve if the process stalls (presumably further leaked video/radar/reports etc…).
Also interesting is the idea of “citizen science” collecting high grade data independent of the military. Avi Loeb of Harvard has raised a similar idea. This should be set against the public comments of NID Ratcliffe that they have satellite data corroborating other data sources of phenomena behaving in unexplainable ways. In an age when the cost of launching satellites is tumbling it becomes quite a realistic idea. Elizondo with a smile says if put in the right place it could be done with a single sensor.
Let’s see. I still expect this story to be the defining one of the 2020s, with the private sector assuming control of pretty much every aspect of the space sector from the military. The US government runs the risk of losing control of the narrative which in my view will compel it to assume leadership of the story.
James Webb telescope on track to launch in Oct. Some time in 2022/3 there’s probably a fair chance it will have found atmospheric conditions in an exo planet indicative of life (e.g. non compound oxygen). Another piece in the gradual disclosure process if/when it comes.
On the squirrelly idea that opinion polls should decide whether there’s another referendum, wouldn’t it have to become legislation to have any relevance? Anyone care to sketch out a path to that coming to pass?
Comments
But let us return to our hoggetts, wedders and yowes - @TSE , that was a surprising start to your Scottish run. Well done.
It actually made me inspect Mr Jack's scale model of Edinburgh's Turd Hotel rather more closely. If you investigate it with a long stick, one or two sweetcorn kernels emerge. One is, who decides which polling results and indeed pollsters are acceptable? We've had at least one PBTory go wild and denounce polls in support for independence as a priori bent.
But perhaps more importantly, who commissions the polls? There is a general issue concerning government by polling which nobody so far today seems to have picked up on, and which affects Scotland badly. Every substantial corporate media outlet* in Scotland or with a significant interest in Scotland is very firmly Unionist[edit], anmd they are the ones which commission polls. Are they going to publish poll results in favour of independence now that the results have a real world significance over and above their usual one? The Westminster Gmt must be leaning on them very hard to publish only polls with the Approved Unionist Result.
The other thing that strikes me is it is yet another example of goalpost moving by the Unionists - from the days when Mrs T accepted in (I think) jest but unwitting foresight that all the SNP needed was a simple majority of MPs for Scottish seats.** And if it was good enough for Mrs T ...
*Yes, I know about the National - but it's owned by a Unionist firm, which (so far as I can see) puts far more resources into its Unionist stablemate the Herald.
** Not quite in so much detail - but in thos edays, what other criterion was there for a majority of the popular will?
Also, what a bizarre use of statistics. If you go to the doctor and say I think I've broken my leg, does he a. check the latest UK statistics for broken legs per 100,000 in your demographic or b. examine your leg?
LOL. The last asvice my CO for me on my final day of service was 'get on the alcohol'.
On Federalism. An English parliament remains the missing link in the constitutional settlement. Yes it would be large and unwieldy compared to the other parliaments but the English block in Westminster already does that. If England then wants regional devolution thats up to them - a matter for their new parliament.
On throwing money at us - fat chance. England isn't about to throw money at England so there is no chance of it being flung across the wall or across the water.
England is ten times the size of Scotland. Scotland's politicians, and a large chunk of the people, blame the English for all sorts under devolution, would do so under Home Rule, and would also do so if independent. That's just life.
We should double or treble taxes if necessary to ensure we never leave people lacking the health services they need.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/28/world/europe/coronavirus-britain-uk.html
On the money: the devolved administrations are already heavily subsidised by Westminster. In the Scottish case, the GERS figures tell us this. If you're moving towards the denialist camp on this then there's no point in my trying to convince you otherwise, but it is what it is.
I suspect a lot of the hatred has to do with the fact he seems to be a lot more in tune with many people than a lot on this site would want.
Ultimately polls cost money and most of the print media is losing money/revenue and polls don't cut it.
So we're likely to move to exclusively online polls and if there's a flaw in that methodology then there's potential for disaster.
There's also the risk that media organisation to move to unweighted online reader polls and say they are more accurate than regular polls because they have larger sample sizes.
When we all know those sort of polls are as about as accurate as Malcolm's prediction of Alba getting 12%-14% minimum in the list.
The comments from the Scottish Secretary simply do not justify the headline. Even the Daily Mirror would be embarrassed to pretend that they did.
Still doesn't address the question of whether or not there should be an unceasing conveyor belt of indyrefs after every SNP election victory though.
"Devi Sridhar, the head of the global public health program at the University of Edinburgh. “It’s really difficult to ask people not to mix for a prolonged period, especially if there is no solution.” "
Honestly, the sheer chutzpah of some of these experts is breathtaking. iirc Sridhar was the leading exponent of zerocovid and complete shutdown.
People with Scottish accents get the vote.
(Morning all).
I'd also like to point out that the Holyrood system was designed to ensure no one party won a majority whereas at Westminster it is designed so a party can win a majority of seats on around 35% of the vote.
I don't think the dogs thing is a negative either. The BBC news narrative implies that Johnson's team were so switched on they even got the stray animals back to Blighty before the window of opportunity closed.
Johnson has himself rather sensibly, kept his head down, so if it had gone/does go pear-shaped it wasn't on his watch. He delegated everything to Raab and Wallace.
As to the polls, free money and "Labour jabber, Conservatives jab" is still in the minds of the voters. No TV in Teeside, pricey petrol, and empty shelves may change that, but Afghanistan and dogs won't.
Under pressure from Alba and some in her own party she changed her position in 2020 arguing that a majority in the Scottish Parliament entitled her government to a referendum. As best as I could work out something like 50.1% of Scots voted for independence supporting parties and 49.9% voted for Unionist parties. It was extremely close but the nationalists won. My view, expressed at the time, is that this entitles them to a referendum if they want it.
The problem is that I do not think that Nicola does. She is very comfortable and well paid as FM and with her husband supposedly in charge of the SNP. She recognises that the current polling on independence makes a second defeat more likely than not. The deck is not nearly as stacked in favour of the SNP as Salmond managed to make it in 2014. What I think that she wants is to ask but be refused building that grievance once more.
The risk is that this, once again, gives Scotland the worst of all worlds. In the neverendum that was the run up to 2014 we had years of economic paralysis and uncertainty. We face the same again but it would be worse this time because of the SM UK/SM EU divide. We really cannot afford to have years of people not knowing if we would have free trade with rUK or not, what currency we are going to trade in, what it is going to be worth, etc. These uncertainties have real world costs. My view is that this 60% nonsense is a mistake. Sturgeon should be offered a referendum but not at the time of her choosing or contrivance. And it should be soon or not at all.
Most anti-independence voters in Scotland are not conviction Unionists. If they thought they'd be £1 per year better off leaving then they would've voted to go in 2014, and we'd not be having this conversation.
People voted in record numbers and elected a record number of MSPs pledged to a 2nd referendum. For him to say "you can't have it, you need 60%" is to tell Scotland their votes don't count.
Feels like it justifies the headline to me. Then again its our votes that have just been negated. Perhaps you don't see the problem as your vote was respected in 2019.
My own experience was there were plenty around me who, off and on, were finding it depressing, overwhelming, scary or lonely. Some had never been away from home before and struggled. In my case the 2nd year was difficult - living out of university accommodation in what was basically a freezing rat hole in a dark, cold northern winter. Definitely character building, but definitely not the happiest few months of my life.
It isn't what I voted for. But the democratic will of the Scottish people is clear. England twatting about in this way only results in a yes vote next time - vote to get out because you can't trust Westminster.
I notice the NYTimes is quoting iSAGE peeps without even mentioning they are in this activist group.
My fear is the longer the UK government says no then it just ensures Scotland does eventually decide to vote to leave the UK.
By the 2000s the emphasis had very much shifted to out-of-area expeditionary warfare. Only 8 of the T23s got a sonar upgrade. None of the planned T31s will be sonar equipped. The T26s will have sonar but no ASW weapon other than the helicopter. If the ship is out of limits for aviation or the helicopter's broken - hard luck - no sub hunting that day.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1431900572945457157?s=20
Perhaps you should cut him some slack.
As I keep saying, Boris's abolition of the UK trade zone will be a massive issue in the coming referendum. I do agree with you David that Scotland shouldn't get to choose when. You and I didn't vote for pro-referendum parties but a majority of MSPs were elected on that platform. So get on with it already. No will win, won't it...?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/29/majority-of-northern-irish-voters-want-vote-on-staying-in-uk
Most want a referendum, most want to stay in the UK.
Here's a scenario for you.
2016 - The UK votes to Remain in the EU.
UKGE 2025 - A Boris Johnson led Tory party puts in its manifesto to leave the EU by 2029 (without the need for a referendum) and wins a landslide.
Would you be arguing the same? Unlikely, this is democracy.
I offer it as an example of the 'care' the returning service personnel can expect.
Must be the first RN escorts to be in that state since, when, 1920s?!
Either way, without wanting to go down the rabbit hole of who said and meant what and when, all sides in 2014 signed up to the "once in a generation" thing. For Jack to say that getting to 60% in favour of a referendum (note: not in favour of independence, just for another chance at getting it) would override that, is a not insignificant concession. I cannot see how a reasonable person would see that as "opinion polls more important that actual votes".
We then had the grotesque spectacle of the mandate of 2017 being described as undemocratic, the MPs and judges ruling on the primacy of [the elected in 2017] parliament described as "traitors".
In our system the democratic mandate is for that parliament. Whatever that parliament enacts is for that parliament to decide, its hands are not bound by its predecessors. The Brexit vote broke the principle of parliamentary democracy so no wonder the SofS wants an extra-parliamentary poll to overrule the democratic will.
Please accept my apology if I upset you
Johnson must be easier to paint as a villain than Starmer.
We have a system of parliamentary democracy. We have two different electoral systems but those are the systems. The result is the result or we have nothing. Just as your party won a majority off a minority vote in Westminster, the forces for independence won a majority for that off a (just about) minority vote in Holyrood.
You cannot support the primacy of one and deny the primacy of the other.
"Had a five minute lecture by someone on what PTSD is and then 25 crates of beer were thrown through the door and that was it..."
That said when one of my soldiers went rogue after an NI deployment, hijacked a car in Surrey at gunpoint, drove it to a field, fell asleep, and woke up shouting you Irish bastards as he was surrounded by armed police, the Crown Court judge accepted PTSD as a contributory factor and he got off.
Back in 2014 I knew a few people working for Yes and they said their focus groups and polls tried to see what having the Tories in power would do.
The result was even Yes voters didn't mind having David Cameron as PM, whilst they might disagree with him on politics, they saw a nice family man who they couldn't hate.
So that's why Yes didn't focus heavily on the occupant of Downing Street.
Now Boris Johnson is another story,
Up to 24 cells VLS Sea Ceptor anti-air missiles[8]
1 × 57 mm Mk 110 main gun
2 × 40 mm Mk 4 secondary guns
4 × 7.62 mm General purpose machine guns
4 × 7.62 mm Miniguns
Aircraft carried
1 × Wildcat,
or
1 × Merlin,
No fixed sonar, no variable deoth sonar, no fixed torpedo tubes for antisubmarine torpedoes, no mention of rocket-lofted torpedoes, etc. Presumably they just hope therew are enough of the 8 Type 26 to be had on the day.
A former head of the British Army has said it was "unfathomable why it would appear that the Government was asleep on watch" in relation to the protection of Afghans who helped soldiers and officials.
Speaking on Times Radio, General Lord Richard Dannatt said: "On the particular issue of those who we knew were in danger, people who had worked for us, interpreters, former locally-engaged civilians, this issue has been in the media.
"This issue has been on politicians' desks for two to three years and, certainly, it's been there during the course of this year."
He pointed out that in July, 45 senior officers wrote an open letter to the Government warning of complacency.
"I think the issue of Afghanistan sat on the backburner... We should have done better, we could have done better. It absolutely behoves us to find out why the Government didn't spark up faster."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/08/29/afghanistan-latest-news-taliban-kabul-airport-evacuation/
From Wiki the critical decision seems to have been at the 2015 Defence Review. The carriers were planned and contracted more than a decade before - and the first launched even before the DR.
AIUI Type 23 had a bow mounted sonar (ie a dome) plus a towed array, and only 8 out of 13 were upgraded to the improved towed array sonar.
Correct?
Leading academics join forces for History Reclaimed campaign aimed at calling out misleading narratives about historical figures
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/29/top-scholars-launch-fightback-against-woke-brigades-blatantly/
If there was a later upgrade for some of them it is not mentioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_31_frigate
These similar but much smaller and older South African frigates seem to be much better equipped:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valour-class_frigate
As do the larger Danish frigates upon which the T31s were based:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Huitfeldt-class_frigate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREMM_multipurpose_frigate
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2610/text#toc-id627E022ABE1340C99913763DC904F68C
Section 345 of the Fiscal Year 22 Intelligence Authorisation Act requires the Sec Def and National Intelligence Director to make any new data on UAP immediately available to the UAP Taskforce.
Thereupon the UAP Taskforce must submit a new report to Congress every 90 days (classified natch) detailing any new data, specifically including any data that predates 90 days but has not yet been disclosed to Congress.
The first report was largely a Navy effort and received no cooperation from either the CIA or US Air Force. This legislation in theory compels their cooperation going forwards. Let’s see. The Air Force classified archives no doubt have a treasure trove of anomalous data going back to the 40s.
Further, Lue Elizondo has been asked why the UAP topic has been so quiet since the report was published. He said words to the effect that he and others have the capability to dial up and down the media heat as required. For now they have achieved their first goal, of forcing the issue formally onto the executive and legislative agenda for further investigation and insight. Elizondo himself had resigned his post as head of the Taskforce because he was forbidden by chain of command from escalating his findings to Matthis.
He claims there is now serious work being done behind the scenes at governmental level and that process now needs to play out. But there are more bullets in reserve if the process stalls (presumably further leaked video/radar/reports etc…).
Also interesting is the idea of “citizen science” collecting high grade data independent of the military. Avi Loeb of Harvard has raised a similar idea. This should be set against the public comments of NID Ratcliffe that they have satellite data corroborating other data sources of phenomena behaving in unexplainable ways. In an age when the cost of launching satellites is tumbling it becomes quite a realistic idea. Elizondo with a smile says if put in the right place it could be done with a single sensor.
Let’s see. I still expect this story to be the defining one of the 2020s, with the private sector assuming control of pretty much every aspect of the space sector from the military. The US government runs the risk of losing control of the narrative which in my view will compel it to assume leadership of the story.
James Webb telescope on track to launch in Oct. Some time in 2022/3 there’s probably a fair chance it will have found atmospheric conditions in an exo planet indicative of life (e.g. non compound oxygen). Another piece in the gradual disclosure process if/when it comes.