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.
PS IN any case frigates are supposed to be able to defend anything, not just carriers - incluiding themselves when they are on their own. Even the Invincible class carriers IIRC had a sonar, perhaps partly for defence.
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.
That was about principles not personalities.
Which surely should be more important in a referendum. The idea that some might vote for independence because they don't like a particular PM is just bizarre, not least because there would be no chance of it actually happening in their period in office.
You could make the reverse argument of course. Salmond's argument was that Scotland wanted higher taxes and better public funded services because Scotland was a more left leaning country than England and were being dominated by the English obsession with a small state. It's actually quite difficult to make that case against Boris who spends money like its going out of fashion and funded the furlough/grant scheme with extraordinary generosity.
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?
That's too, er, legalistic to suit modern Tory Party thinking. They'd need to do some work and be actually specific about what they meant. And even then ... as the RNLI would say (if they were even allowed to, given the charity-gagging laws).
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
Please accept my apology if I upset you
No apology needed, Big G. All the best to your son.
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?
That's too, er, legalistic to suit modern Tory Party thinking. They'd need to do some work and be actually specific about what they meant. And even then ... as the RNLI would say (if they were even allowed to, given the charity-gagging laws).
Yep, anchoring goalposts must be avoided at all costs.
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
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.
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
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.
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
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?
It's bonkers. There is a proper vote for the Holyrood parliament and the criterion should be based on the votes cast there for parties that call for a referendum. Opinion polls are irrelevant.
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
Why is there no GP?
My daughter in law e mailed me recently and commented
Unfortunately our GP is on indefinite leave and we are on a long list for a regular doctor
It is very hard here to find a doctor and most people have the same issue as doctors are not accepting patients
She went on to say that our son goes to the drop in clinic if needed and he is still under his mental health specialist but the care is overstretched
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
Please accept my apology if I upset you
No apology needed, Big G. All the best to your son.
Thank you
I hope if nothing else it does help our fellow posters to understand just how serious a condition it is and is very difficult to treat
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?
It's bonkers. There is a proper vote for the Holyrood parliament and the criterion should be based on the votes cast there for parties that call for a referendum. Opinion polls are irrelevant.
It's curious that they apply ideas from NI to Scotland but when the Scots want to ask about being in the EU like the NIrish the shutters go down.
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?
It's bonkers. There is a proper vote for the Holyrood parliament and the criterion should be based on the votes cast there for parties that call for a referendum. Opinion polls are irrelevant.
It's curious that they apply ideas from NI to Scotland but when the Scots want to ask about being in the EU like the NIrish the shutters go down.
We had a vote in the Brexit referendum like the rest of the country. Ok, the majority here was Remain, just as it was in London. But so what? It was a UK national vote.
The usual criticism of everything the government does from this author. He doesn't say on what criteria a referendum should be granted. My own view is that if the Scots want a referendum it should be granted but if they want it then it should take place immediately. The rest of the UK should not have to wait until the Scots think it's convenient to them.
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?
It's bonkers. There is a proper vote for the Holyrood parliament and the criterion should be based on the votes cast there for parties that call for a referendum. Opinion polls are irrelevant.
It's curious that they apply ideas from NI to Scotland but when the Scots want to ask about being in the EU like the NIrish the shutters go down.
We had a vote in the Brexit referendum like the rest of the country. Ok, the majority here was Remain, just as it was in London. But so what? It was a UK national vote.
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?
It's bonkers. There is a proper vote for the Holyrood parliament and the criterion should be based on the votes cast there for parties that call for a referendum. Opinion polls are irrelevant.
It's curious that they apply ideas from NI to Scotland but when the Scots want to ask about being in the EU like the NIrish the shutters go down.
We had a vote in the Brexit referendum like the rest of the country. Ok, the majority here was Remain, just as it was in London. But so what? It was a UK national vote.
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.
Coming back to this after setting up a meeting on Tuesday, my observation would be that the second year can be the good one or the bad one. Although I take what you say about some finding it 'depressing, overwhelming, scary or lonely'. One of my nieces went somewhere where we all thought enjoy herself but by her first Christmas was home for good; the change from semi-rural to a city was too much.
The usual criticism of everything the government does from this author. He doesn't say on what criteria a referendum should be granted. My own view is that if the Scots want a referendum it should be granted but if they want it then it should take place immediately. The rest of the UK should not have to wait until the Scots think it's convenient to them.
Try reading the thread before commentating upon it.
I’ve said the criteria has already been met.
A majority of Holyrood seats won by parties with an explicit commitment to hold a new referendum.
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?
It's bonkers. There is a proper vote for the Holyrood parliament and the criterion should be based on the votes cast there for parties that call for a referendum. Opinion polls are irrelevant.
It's curious that they apply ideas from NI to Scotland but when the Scots want to ask about being in the EU like the NIrish the shutters go down.
We had a vote in the Brexit referendum like the rest of the country. Ok, the majority here was Remain, just as it was in London. But so what? It was a UK national vote.
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?
It's bonkers. There is a proper vote for the Holyrood parliament and the criterion should be based on the votes cast there for parties that call for a referendum. Opinion polls are irrelevant.
It's curious that they apply ideas from NI to Scotland but when the Scots want to ask about being in the EU like the NIrish the shutters go down.
We had a vote in the Brexit referendum like the rest of the country. Ok, the majority here was Remain, just as it was in London. But so what? It was a UK national vote.
NI was part of the UK too. Sort of still is.
What's your point?
1. There was a UK-wide advisory referendum in the 2015 parliament 2. England and Wales voted leave, Scotland and NI voted remain 3. The 2019 parliament abolished the UK trading zone and created a special EU-member NI zone 4. Scotland went into the new GB zone with England & Wales 5. The UK government can arbitrarily change the customs status of any nation without consultation of the electorate in that nation
It remains official policy / fantasy that there is no need for any customs / standards checks between the GB and NI customs zones. The same principle could therefore apply if Scotland joined NI in the EU zone. Based on official policy the only reason this hasn't happened is because Westminster refuses.
On the border: the last minute deal on NI was meant to stop imposing a border on the island. Scotland leaving would impose one where before there was none, the antithesis of the problem of the Irish border.
On the border: the last minute deal on NI was meant to stop imposing a border on the island. Scotland leaving would impose one where before there was none, the antithesis of the problem of the Irish border.
And, with that, I must be off.
Eh? There is a new border with NI now, where there was not one before.
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
I think people are significantly overestimating the chances of a 2nd referendum ever happening TBH (although it could just about happen in 2023-26 if there's a Lab minority gvt after 2023/24). In some ways it would have been better if Theresa May had called the SNP's bluff and held a referendum in the 2017-2019.
I can actually see how this stasis holding for quite a long time TBH as both the SNP establishment and Tories are both strangely happy with the status quo no matter what they say. I can't see what influence ALBA and the pro indy hardliners have over the SNP to actually force another vote as the SNP and Greens are very popular with a critical segment of soft indy SNP/Green voters who seem happy for the can to be continually kicked down the road.
The remit of Holyrood is the exercise of the devolved powers in Scotland. They have no legal authority (although obviously a political voice) about an independence referendum. You can’t justifiably claim that all votes for the SNP are automatically a vote for a referendum now
Similarly the election of Westminster MPs isn’t that significant because it is a decision for Westminster as a whole. Westminster’s decision should be based on whether there is a clear demand from the Scottish people for another independence referendum.
Opinion polls, while by no means perfect, are a reasonable way of judging this.
On the border: the last minute deal on NI was meant to stop imposing a border on the island. Scotland leaving would impose one where before there was none, the antithesis of the problem of the Irish border.
And, with that, I must be off.
Eh? There is a new border with NI now, where there was not one before.
The new border is down the middle of the Irish Sea and North Channel. Incidentally, on which side of it is the Isle of Man?
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?
It's bonkers. There is a proper vote for the Holyrood parliament and the criterion should be based on the votes cast there for parties that call for a referendum. Opinion polls are irrelevant.
It's curious that they apply ideas from NI to Scotland but when the Scots want to ask about being in the EU like the NIrish the shutters go down.
We had a vote in the Brexit referendum like the rest of the country. Ok, the majority here was Remain, just as it was in London. But so what? It was a UK national vote.
NI was part of the UK too. Sort of still is.
What's your point?
NI is still in the EU.
Ah, right. It's not fair, we want that too! (Same to RP) Well tough. That's how the cookie crumbles.
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.
Coming back to this after setting up a meeting on Tuesday, my observation would be that the second year can be the good one or the bad one. Although I take what you say about some finding it 'depressing, overwhelming, scary or lonely'. One of my nieces went somewhere where we all thought enjoy herself but by her first Christmas was home for good; the change from semi-rural to a city was too much.
My advice to a soon to be student:
On line videos of sorority hazing activities are not representative of student life.
Europe joined the vaccine race late, but the pace at which jabs have been going into arms in recent months has been staggering. France is now fractionally ahead of us on single jabs, while Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Spain and Portugal now all have a significantly greater proportion of their citizens fully vaccinated.
Europe has also been quicker to start vaccinating its teenagers. In France, Spain and Italy, more than half of those aged 12 to 18 are already vaccinated, for example.
Europe joined the vaccine race late, but the pace at which jabs have been going into arms in recent months has been staggering. France is now fractionally ahead of us on single jabs, while Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Spain and Portugal now all have a significantly greater proportion of their citizens fully vaccinated.
Europe has also been quicker to start vaccinating its teenagers. In France, Spain and Italy, more than half of those aged 12 to 18 are already vaccinated, for example.
Aren’t they just making the same point twice
All citizens inc kids
Kid specifically
Its vaccination rates per year group which count.
In particular the older year groups.
Vaccinating kids doesn't stop the hospitals filling up with unvaccinated oldies.
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.
Coming back to this after setting up a meeting on Tuesday, my observation would be that the second year can be the good one or the bad one. Although I take what you say about some finding it 'depressing, overwhelming, scary or lonely'. One of my nieces went somewhere where we all thought enjoy herself but by her first Christmas was home for good; the change from semi-rural to a city was too much.
My advice to a soon to be student:
On line videos of sorority hazing activities are not representative of student life.
Isn't that a US activity? Generally speaking. I thought that here such groups were only to be found in Universities which took a substantial numbers of former Eton (and similar) students.
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?
It's bonkers. There is a proper vote for the Holyrood parliament and the criterion should be based on the votes cast there for parties that call for a referendum. Opinion polls are irrelevant.
It's curious that they apply ideas from NI to Scotland but when the Scots want to ask about being in the EU like the NIrish the shutters go down.
We had a vote in the Brexit referendum like the rest of the country. Ok, the majority here was Remain, just as it was in London. But so what? It was a UK national vote.
NI was part of the UK too. Sort of still is.
What's your point?
NI is still in the EU.
Ah, right. It's not fair, we want that too! (Same to RP) Well tough. That's how the cookie crumbles.
"Well tough. That's how the cookie crumbles" is a fab slogan for No in the forthcoming referendum campaign. I do wonder just how some people can be this tone deaf and politically naive.
On the border: the last minute deal on NI was meant to stop imposing a border on the island. Scotland leaving would impose one where before there was none, the antithesis of the problem of the Irish border.
And, with that, I must be off.
Eh? There is a new border with NI now, where there was not one before.
The new border is down the middle of the Irish Sea and North Channel. Incidentally, on which side of it is the Isle of Man?
Neither! The IofM is neither a part of the UK nor of the EU. I cannot find anything directly relating to the IofM post the abolition of the UK trading zone it was a member of. I assume that its free trade is now with the new GB zone - ??
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?
It's bonkers. There is a proper vote for the Holyrood parliament and the criterion should be based on the votes cast there for parties that call for a referendum. Opinion polls are irrelevant.
It's curious that they apply ideas from NI to Scotland but when the Scots want to ask about being in the EU like the NIrish the shutters go down.
We had a vote in the Brexit referendum like the rest of the country. Ok, the majority here was Remain, just as it was in London. But so what? It was a UK national vote.
NI was part of the UK too. Sort of still is.
What's your point?
NI is still in the EU.
Ah, right. It's not fair, we want that too! (Same to RP) Well tough. That's how the cookie crumbles.
"Well tough. That's how the cookie crumbles" is a fab slogan for No in the forthcoming referendum campaign. I do wonder just how some people can be this tone deaf and politically naive.
It would be an interesting slogan! But of course it's not a slogan, it's just my response to Carnyx and to you. You ignore the fact that NI has been a difficult, almost intractable, problem for donkeys years. It has been fudged over with pretence and a blind eye, and it has needed extraordinary political manoeuvring to preserve the peace and create a kind of normality. None of this applies to Scotland. The squeaky wheel got the oil.
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?
It's bonkers. There is a proper vote for the Holyrood parliament and the criterion should be based on the votes cast there for parties that call for a referendum. Opinion polls are irrelevant.
It's curious that they apply ideas from NI to Scotland but when the Scots want to ask about being in the EU like the NIrish the shutters go down.
We had a vote in the Brexit referendum like the rest of the country. Ok, the majority here was Remain, just as it was in London. But so what? It was a UK national vote.
NI was part of the UK too. Sort of still is.
What's your point?
NI is still in the EU.
Ah, right. It's not fair, we want that too! (Same to RP) Well tough. That's how the cookie crumbles.
"Well tough. That's how the cookie crumbles" is a fab slogan for No in the forthcoming referendum campaign. I do wonder just how some people can be this tone deaf and politically naive.
It would be an interesting slogan! But of course it's not a slogan, it's just my response to Carnyx and to you. You ignore the fact that NI has been a difficult, almost intractable, problem for donkeys years. It has been fudged over with pretence and a blind eye, and it has needed extraordinary political manoeuvring to preserve the peace and create a kind of normality. None of this applies to Scotland. The squeaky wheel got the oil.
'Pick up your Armalite cos we'll ignore the ballot box, otherwise foxtrot oscar' would also be an interesting slogan.
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?
It's bonkers. There is a proper vote for the Holyrood parliament and the criterion should be based on the votes cast there for parties that call for a referendum. Opinion polls are irrelevant.
It's curious that they apply ideas from NI to Scotland but when the Scots want to ask about being in the EU like the NIrish the shutters go down.
We had a vote in the Brexit referendum like the rest of the country. Ok, the majority here was Remain, just as it was in London. But so what? It was a UK national vote.
NI was part of the UK too. Sort of still is.
What's your point?
NI is still in the EU.
Ah, right. It's not fair, we want that too! (Same to RP) Well tough. That's how the cookie crumbles.
"Well tough. That's how the cookie crumbles" is a fab slogan for No in the forthcoming referendum campaign. I do wonder just how some people can be this tone deaf and politically naive.
It would be an interesting slogan! But of course it's not a slogan, it's just my response to Carnyx and to you. You ignore the fact that NI has been a difficult, almost intractable, problem for donkeys years. It has been fudged over with pretence and a blind eye, and it has needed extraordinary political manoeuvring to preserve the peace and create a kind of normality. None of this applies to Scotland. The squeaky wheel got the oil.
That NI should become a particular problem again for a Conservative Government is one of life's ironies, as after all it was their political ancestors who were responsible for the situation.
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
I define likely as more probable than not. The idea that it covers things that are highly possibly but in probability, well, unlikely, is a bit of a new one for me.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Has anyone found a single report in any paper from any broadcaster, today, noting that cases in England are now unambiguously falling - down on average over the past week?
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
I think people are significantly overestimating the chances of a 2nd referendum ever happening TBH (although it could just about happen in 2023-26 if there's a Lab minority gvt after 2023/24). In some ways it would have been better if Theresa May had called the SNP's bluff and held a referendum in the 2017-2019.
I can actually see how this stasis holding for quite a long time TBH as both the SNP establishment and Tories are both strangely happy with the status quo no matter what they say. I can't see what influence ALBA and the pro indy hardliners have over the SNP to actually force another vote as the SNP and Greens are very popular with a critical segment of soft indy SNP/Green voters who seem happy for the can to be continually kicked down the road.
If the SNP are happy with the status quo, being more wedded to dominating a devolved Scotland than to achieving an independent Scotland, there won't be another Sindy referendum anytime soon. I agree with you there. But I don't believe they are happy with it. It makes no sense. Some in the party will no doubt be secretly content with keeping busy rather sealing the deal but not the leadership and not the activists and not most of their voters. Independence is THE core value and policy of the party. To state that they aren't really committed to it is an extraordinary claim for which the evidence is slim to zero. I think they ARE committed to it and this will become clear over the next couple of years. They might or might not get their Sindy vote but I predict fireworks. It won't be "Boris says no", end of, however much some might love that idea.
It has been fudged over with pretence and a blind eye,
Why do people keep saying this? There was no "fudge" in the GFA. All parties knew exactly the obligations and painful compromises to which they were committing.
Admittedly, some tories think they can fix the way they fucked it all up with Brexit by using "fudge".
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Has anyone found a single report in any paper from any broadcaster, today, noting that cases in England are now unambiguously falling - down on average over the past week?
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?
It's bonkers. There is a proper vote for the Holyrood parliament and the criterion should be based on the votes cast there for parties that call for a referendum. Opinion polls are irrelevant.
It's curious that they apply ideas from NI to Scotland but when the Scots want to ask about being in the EU like the NIrish the shutters go down.
We had a vote in the Brexit referendum like the rest of the country. Ok, the majority here was Remain, just as it was in London. But so what? It was a UK national vote.
NI was part of the UK too. Sort of still is.
What's your point?
NI is still in the EU.
Ah, right. It's not fair, we want that too! (Same to RP) Well tough. That's how the cookie crumbles.
"Well tough. That's how the cookie crumbles" is a fab slogan for No in the forthcoming referendum campaign. I do wonder just how some people can be this tone deaf and politically naive.
It would be an interesting slogan! But of course it's not a slogan, it's just my response to Carnyx and to you. You ignore the fact that NI has been a difficult, almost intractable, problem for donkeys years. It has been fudged over with pretence and a blind eye, and it has needed extraordinary political manoeuvring to preserve the peace and create a kind of normality. None of this applies to Scotland. The squeaky wheel got the oil.
In what way has abolishing the UK trading zone and establishing NI as a separate customs and standards area "preserved the peace and created a kind of normality"?
Its blindingly obvious that the current "settlement" is anything but. English Brexiteer voters may be willing to listen to that lying twat and think "that's the truth that is" but Norniron unionists aren't that stupid.
Anyway, my point was that as the government are pretending that there is no need for customs and standards checks between the GB and NI(EU) zones, then they cannot claim that there would be the need for them had Scotland also joined this EU zone - or if it also leaves the GB zone.
The remit of Holyrood is the exercise of the devolved powers in Scotland. They have no legal authority (although obviously a political voice) about an independence referendum. You can’t justifiably claim that all votes for the SNP are automatically a vote for a referendum now
Similarly the election of Westminster MPs isn’t that significant because it is a decision for Westminster as a whole. Westminster’s decision should be based on whether there is a clear demand from the Scottish people for another independence referendum.
Opinion polls, while by no means perfect, are a reasonable way of judging this.
My son is currently studying Arend Lijphart’s Patterns of Democracy and we had an interesting debate about it yesterday. He defined and measured democracies between Executive and federal structures and, more relevantly, between majoritarian and consensus models. The Westminster model is almost uniquely majoritarian now in that it consistently gives almost absolute power to a plurality. In recent times we have recognised that certain important questions (and AV) needed at least a broader definition of majority if not a full on consensus based model so we have gone to referendums for them.
I think that this is right but that the Swiss probably overdo it. For independence, seats in Parliament are not really the issue, it is the absolute majority that matters. Whether we can evolve our politics to a more consensus based system where the interests and views of significant minorities are also reflected remains to be seen but the recent Brexit sagas suggest not.
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
I define likely as more probable than not. The idea that it covers things that are highly possibly but in probability, well, unlikely, is a bit of a new one for me.
If someone was asked to say who are the likely teams to win the Premier League, which is the better answer:
None Man City and Chelsea
I think like most words, it needs context and an awareness from the reader/listener that the word has multiple meanings.
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
I define likely as more probable than not. The idea that it covers things that are highly possibly but in probability, well, unlikely, is a bit of a new one for me.
If someone was asked to say who are the likely teams to win the Premier League, which is the better answer:
None Man City and Chelsea
I think like most words, it needs context and an awareness from the reader/listener that the word has multiple meanings.
It's just an ambiguity that I wasn't aware of before. In your example I would say the correct answer is probably Man CIty or Chelsea in that it is more likely than not that 1 of those teams will win the league. That is not to say that Utd and Liverpool don't have a reasonable chance but it is not as likely that either of those 2 will win.
Interesting how language and nuance evolves though.
Edit - one person who joined at Cannock is wearing one.
Proper masks or placebo masks ?
I was in Leeds and Pontefract yesterday, very few wearing masks but what struck me about those who were was that a very high percentage of them were not wearing them properly. Lots of them had their nose uncovered, which struck me as bizarre. Seems pointless.
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
I define likely as more probable than not. The idea that it covers things that are highly possibly but in probability, well, unlikely, is a bit of a new one for me.
If someone was asked to say who are the likely teams to win the Premier League, which is the better answer:
None Man City and Chelsea
I think like most words, it needs context and an awareness from the reader/listener that the word has multiple meanings.
It's just an ambiguity that I wasn't aware of before. In your example I would say the correct answer is probably Man CIty or Chelsea in that it is more likely than not that 1 of those teams will win the league. That is not to say that Utd and Liverpool don't have a reasonable chance but it is not as likely that either of those 2 will win.
Interesting how language and nuance evolves though.
Another way of looking at it is Man City are the most likely team to win the Premier League.
It is then difficult to credibly say it is incorrect that they are likely to win the Premier League, because they are not odds on.
Morning all. I'm a long-standing federalist and campaigned in may for the LibDems - a federalist party. I am not a natural supporter of independence. I am though a natural supporter of democracy - you get what you vote for.
In May Scotland voted on a record turnout and elected a record number of MSPs on an explicit platform for a 2nd referendum. Whatever Alister Jack thinks (or worse his frit keyboard warrior fool from Essicks) is irrelevant - Scotland has spoken.
The Tories have a track record of abolishing democratic institutions that disagree with them. Thatcher with her huge majority hated that London voted Labour so abolished it. Johnson with his large majority hates that Scotland doesn't love him how he doesn't love them so ignores them. His SofS says the election in May doesn't count, 55% of elected MSPs for a referendum isn't enough now it needs to be 60%
There is a basic warning to heed. People dislike being told that they voted wrong. Every time a court overturns an election result the following by-election delivers a thumping majority to replace the overturned wafer thin one. Brexit was seen as "rejected" by various parties hence the thumping Tory majority.
You can ignore the will of the people for only so long. Even I as a new Scot am now tempted to roll the dice as and when a vote eventually happens - we can't trust Westminster. "Why would you think that and leap off into the dark" ask various posters who said we can't trust Brussels and voted for said leap into the dark 5 years ago. What goes around comes around.
Thatcher did abolish the GLC - yet the Tories did very well indeed in London at the 1987 GE.
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
Aren't you ignoring the cumulative millions of additional days worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier? Of course they were going to end up in similar places, although the numbers in France are definitely flattered by them having far more eligible.
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
I think people are significantly overestimating the chances of a 2nd referendum ever happening TBH (although it could just about happen in 2023-26 if there's a Lab minority gvt after 2023/24). In some ways it would have been better if Theresa May had called the SNP's bluff and held a referendum in the 2017-2019.
I can actually see how this stasis holding for quite a long time TBH as both the SNP establishment and Tories are both strangely happy with the status quo no matter what they say. I can't see what influence ALBA and the pro indy hardliners have over the SNP to actually force another vote as the SNP and Greens are very popular with a critical segment of soft indy SNP/Green voters who seem happy for the can to be continually kicked down the road.
If the SNP are happy with the status quo, being more wedded to dominating a devolved Scotland than to achieving an independent Scotland, there won't be another Sindy referendum anytime soon. I agree with you there. But I don't believe they are happy with it. It makes no sense. Some in the party will no doubt be secretly content with keeping busy rather sealing the deal but not the leadership and not the activists and not most of their voters. Independence is THE core value and policy of the party. To state that they aren't really committed to it is an extraordinary claim for which the evidence is slim to zero. I think they ARE committed to it and this will become clear over the next couple of years. They might or might not get their Sindy vote but I predict fireworks. It won't be "Boris says no", end of, however much some might love that idea.
The ambiguity of the SNP position is a part of the problem though. So, you are given some extra money from Whitehall because of Covid to be spent on health. Do you:
(a) spend it all on trying to eliminate the horrendous backlogs that have built up as a result of restricted capacity during the pandemic?
(b) buy those cancer drugs that are available in England but not in Scotland because there were thought to be more votes in free prescriptions?
(c) Abolish car parking charges at Scottish Hospitals.
The Scottish government has gone for (c). Once again, they think that this is the more vote friendly option and that is the determining factor. Running a country on this basis for an extended period has serious drawbacks. If the SNP would buckle down and start running the country instead of constantly trying to win another percent to independence we just might be in a better place. And so, ironically, might they.
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
Aren't you ignoring the cumulative millions of additional days worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier? Of course they were going to end up in similar places, although the numbers in France are definitely flattered by them having far more eligible.
We start from way behind with the amount of people that have died here, so what you're saying is that we end up still behind, what an achievement
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
Aren't you ignoring the cumulative millions of additional days worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier? Of course they were going to end up in similar places, although the numbers in France are definitely flattered by them having far more eligible.
We start from way behind with the amount of people that have died here, so what you're saying is that we end up still behind, what an achievement
You were talking about the vaccination program. The majority of deaths unfortunately happened before it got off the ground.
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
I define likely as more probable than not. The idea that it covers things that are highly possibly but in probability, well, unlikely, is a bit of a new one for me.
So "likely" has to be an odds on shot for you. A greater than 50% probability. Otherwise it's not likely. Fair enough, that's a good and clear def, but then there's no room when describing possible outcomes for terms such as "quite likely" or "more likely" or "likeliest".
But anyway, we understand each other now, which has to be a plus.
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.
UDI in Scotland would be ignored by Unionists who would continue to accept the authority of Westminster.
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
Aren't you ignoring the cumulative millions of additional days worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier? Of course they were going to end up in similar places, although the numbers in France are definitely flattered by them having far more eligible.
We start from way behind with the amount of people that have died here, so what you're saying is that we end up still behind, what an achievement
You were talking about the vaccination program. The majority of deaths unfortunately happened before it got off the ground.
I said shame about all the people that have died.
The world beating vaccine program which isn't world beating + the deaths mean we come out of this objectively as one of the worst performing countries in the world
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
Aren't you ignoring the cumulative millions of additional days worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier? Of course they were going to end up in similar places, although the numbers in France are definitely flattered by them having far more eligible.
We start from way behind with the amount of people that have died here, so what you're saying is that we end up still behind, what an achievement
You were talking about the vaccination program. The majority of deaths unfortunately happened before it got off the ground.
I said shame about all the people that have died.
The world beating vaccine program which isn't world beating + the deaths mean we come out of this objectively as one of the worst performing countries in the world
The counterfactual you need to consider is what would the situation been like had the vaccination roll out been as slow as it was in the EU. In that situation, deaths would have been higher still. I'm not sure how you can claim the programs were basically the same.
Have you looked at the stats recently. The UK is relatively middling, nowhere near worst in the world.
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
It was only April when pb.com tories were blasting poleslaw into each other's faces at the thought of how bad the summer was going to be for covid in the EU compared to the UK.
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
I define likely as more probable than not. The idea that it covers things that are highly possibly but in probability, well, unlikely, is a bit of a new one for me.
So "likely" has to be an odds on shot for you. A greater than 50% probability. Otherwise it's not likely. Fair enough, that's a good and clear def, but then there's no room when describing possible outcomes for terms such as "quite likely" or "more likely" or "likeliest".
But anyway, we understand each other now, which has to be a plus.
Taking @noneoftheabove's example I can see how you could use the phrase "most likely" for something that was not odds on but had a higher probability than the alternatives. So, in his example, you might say Man City are most likely to win the league among the teams in it but that is, in my opinion, different from saying that they are likely to do so.
Anyway, we have probably bored everyone else stupid with this by now.
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
I think people are significantly overestimating the chances of a 2nd referendum ever happening TBH (although it could just about happen in 2023-26 if there's a Lab minority gvt after 2023/24). In some ways it would have been better if Theresa May had called the SNP's bluff and held a referendum in the 2017-2019.
I can actually see how this stasis holding for quite a long time TBH as both the SNP establishment and Tories are both strangely happy with the status quo no matter what they say. I can't see what influence ALBA and the pro indy hardliners have over the SNP to actually force another vote as the SNP and Greens are very popular with a critical segment of soft indy SNP/Green voters who seem happy for the can to be continually kicked down the road.
If the SNP are happy with the status quo, being more wedded to dominating a devolved Scotland than to achieving an independent Scotland, there won't be another Sindy referendum anytime soon. I agree with you there. But I don't believe they are happy with it. It makes no sense. Some in the party will no doubt be secretly content with keeping busy rather sealing the deal but not the leadership and not the activists and not most of their voters. Independence is THE core value and policy of the party. To state that they aren't really committed to it is an extraordinary claim for which the evidence is slim to zero. I think they ARE committed to it and this will become clear over the next couple of years. They might or might not get their Sindy vote but I predict fireworks. It won't be "Boris says no", end of, however much some might love that idea.
The ambiguity of the SNP position is a part of the problem though. So, you are given some extra money from Whitehall because of Covid to be spent on health. Do you:
(a) spend it all on trying to eliminate the horrendous backlogs that have built up as a result of restricted capacity during the pandemic?
(b) buy those cancer drugs that are available in England but not in Scotland because there were thought to be more votes in free prescriptions?
(c) Abolish car parking charges at Scottish Hospitals.
The Scottish government has gone for (c). Once again, they think that this is the more vote friendly option and that is the determining factor. Running a country on this basis for an extended period has serious drawbacks. If the SNP would buckle down and start running the country instead of constantly trying to win another percent to independence we just might be in a better place. And so, ironically, might they.
The selection of drugs available to prescribe is based primarily on clinical bodies' judgements (NICE and SMC). Hence the slightly different decisions on each side of the border. It's actually far more usual for Unionists and Tories to moan that certain drugs are available in England but not Scotland, I must admit. Edit: but that is in Scotland - the London newspapers and their editions do it exactly the other way round.
And as a Tory you should approve of the elimination of bureaucracy involved in means testing prescriptions. As I recall, that in itself pays much of the additional cost of free prescriptions.
Yes but these are rolling polls so I'm not sure how reliable they are.
Mainstreet in particular is throwing out some extraordinary numbers for the Conservatives.
I would certainly want to wait for a large-sample poll from Counsel or IPSOS but I do agree Trudeau's position has worsened since the campaign started but the Conservatives are still a way from a majority.
Europe joined the vaccine race late, but the pace at which jabs have been going into arms in recent months has been staggering. France is now fractionally ahead of us on single jabs, while Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Spain and Portugal now all have a significantly greater proportion of their citizens fully vaccinated.
Europe has also been quicker to start vaccinating its teenagers. In France, Spain and Italy, more than half of those aged 12 to 18 are already vaccinated, for example.
First link from Comical Dave to the Telegraph for some time coming Real Soon Now.
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
Aren't you ignoring the cumulative millions of additional days worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier? Of course they were going to end up in similar places, although the numbers in France are definitely flattered by them having far more eligible.
We start from way behind with the amount of people that have died here, so what you're saying is that we end up still behind, what an achievement
You were talking about the vaccination program. The majority of deaths unfortunately happened before it got off the ground.
I said shame about all the people that have died.
The world beating vaccine program which isn't world beating + the deaths mean we come out of this objectively as one of the worst performing countries in the world
The counterfactual you need to consider is what would the situation been like had the vaccination roll out been as slow as it was in the EU. In that situation, deaths would have been higher still. I'm not sure how you can claim the programs were basically the same.
Have you looked at the stats recently. The UK is relatively middling, nowhere near worst in the world.
So the counterfactual is that more people would have died, that's not a great endorsement when so many had died anyway.
You lot called it world beating and I remember many here saying we were going to crush Europe and yet I don't hear those same people going off anymore, why not?
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
I define likely as more probable than not. The idea that it covers things that are highly possibly but in probability, well, unlikely, is a bit of a new one for me.
So "likely" has to be an odds on shot for you. A greater than 50% probability. Otherwise it's not likely. Fair enough, that's a good and clear def, but then there's no room when describing possible outcomes for terms such as "quite likely" or "more likely" or "likeliest".
But anyway, we understand each other now, which has to be a plus.
Taking @noneoftheabove's example I can see how you could use the phrase "most likely" for something that was not odds on but had a higher probability than the alternatives. So, in his example, you might say Man City are most likely to win the league among the teams in it but that is, in my opinion, different from saying that they are likely to do so.
Anyway, we have probably bored everyone else stupid with this by now.
If boring people stupid was a reason to end a pb discussion, pb would be in trouble! Sindy, Brexit, Woke, Leader ratings never to be heard again for a start.
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.
Coming back to this after setting up a meeting on Tuesday, my observation would be that the second year can be the good one or the bad one. Although I take what you say about some finding it 'depressing, overwhelming, scary or lonely'. One of my nieces went somewhere where we all thought enjoy herself but by her first Christmas was home for good; the change from semi-rural to a city was too much.
My advice to a soon to be student:
On line videos of sorority hazing activities are not representative of student life.
Isn't that a US activity? Generally speaking. I thought that here such groups were only to be found in Universities which took a substantial numbers of former Eton (and similar) students.
Having researched the topic, the participants all seem to say 'Yes sister' with American accents.
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
Aren't you ignoring the cumulative millions of additional days worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier? Of course they were going to end up in similar places, although the numbers in France are definitely flattered by them having far more eligible.
We start from way behind with the amount of people that have died here, so what you're saying is that we end up still behind, what an achievement
You were talking about the vaccination program. The majority of deaths unfortunately happened before it got off the ground.
I said shame about all the people that have died.
The world beating vaccine program which isn't world beating + the deaths mean we come out of this objectively as one of the worst performing countries in the world
The counterfactual you need to consider is what would the situation been like had the vaccination roll out been as slow as it was in the EU. In that situation, deaths would have been higher still. I'm not sure how you can claim the programs were basically the same.
Have you looked at the stats recently. The UK is relatively middling, nowhere near worst in the world.
So the counterfactual is that more people would have died, that's not a great endorsement when so many had died anyway.
You lot called it world beating and I remember many here saying we were going to crush Europe and yet I don't hear those same people going off anymore, why not?
Again, you were talking about the vaccine program, saying it was about the same as in other countries. You are therefore suggesting that had the UK been as slow as other countries vaccinating it would have had no material effect on the figures. I think that assumption is wrong, it would have resulted in many more deaths that have been prevented from the cumulative million+ days' worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier. Of course that is a good thing.
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
The UK vaccinated more of the key groups and did so quicker and also with the superior eight week gap.
Now you can point out that some countries have eventually vaccinated more or vaccinated more of the minimal risk groups or vaccinated quicker because they used a three week gap or increase vaccination by placing extra restrictions on the whole population.
And that would be true but overall there are few countries which have done as well and then only marginally.
As to the people who have died take a look at other countries, in particular take a look at other countries once they have had full impact from Delta - it will be many months before covid ceases to be a major issue.
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
I define likely as more probable than not. The idea that it covers things that are highly possibly but in probability, well, unlikely, is a bit of a new one for me.
So "likely" has to be an odds on shot for you. A greater than 50% probability. Otherwise it's not likely. Fair enough, that's a good and clear def, but then there's no room when describing possible outcomes for terms such as "quite likely" or "more likely" or "likeliest".
But anyway, we understand each other now, which has to be a plus.
Taking @noneoftheabove's example I can see how you could use the phrase "most likely" for something that was not odds on but had a higher probability than the alternatives. So, in his example, you might say Man City are most likely to win the league among the teams in it but that is, in my opinion, different from saying that they are likely to do so.
Anyway, we have probably bored everyone else stupid with this by now.
That is how superlatives work generally, not a special feature of "likely." Presumably one of Snow White's 7 dwarves was the tallest of the lot. Doesn't mean he was tall.
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
Aren't you ignoring the cumulative millions of additional days worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier? Of course they were going to end up in similar places, although the numbers in France are definitely flattered by them having far more eligible.
We start from way behind with the amount of people that have died here, so what you're saying is that we end up still behind, what an achievement
You were talking about the vaccination program. The majority of deaths unfortunately happened before it got off the ground.
I said shame about all the people that have died.
The world beating vaccine program which isn't world beating + the deaths mean we come out of this objectively as one of the worst performing countries in the world
The counterfactual you need to consider is what would the situation been like had the vaccination roll out been as slow as it was in the EU. In that situation, deaths would have been higher still. I'm not sure how you can claim the programs were basically the same.
Have you looked at the stats recently. The UK is relatively middling, nowhere near worst in the world.
So the counterfactual is that more people would have died, that's not a great endorsement when so many had died anyway.
You lot called it world beating and I remember many here saying we were going to crush Europe and yet I don't hear those same people going off anymore, why not?
Again, you were talking about the vaccine program, saying it was about the same as in other countries. You are therefore suggesting that had the UK been as slow as other countries vaccinating it would have had no material effect on the figures. I think that assumption is wrong, it would have resulted in many more deaths that have been prevented from the cumulative million+ days' worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier. Of course that is a good thing.
The vaccine programme is not world beating, even though you lot said repeatedly it was.
As I keep saying, to celebrate that fewer people died when our death toll was already one of the highest in the world just makes you look silly
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
Aren't you ignoring the cumulative millions of additional days worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier? Of course they were going to end up in similar places, although the numbers in France are definitely flattered by them having far more eligible.
We start from way behind with the amount of people that have died here, so what you're saying is that we end up still behind, what an achievement
You were talking about the vaccination program. The majority of deaths unfortunately happened before it got off the ground.
I said shame about all the people that have died.
The world beating vaccine program which isn't world beating + the deaths mean we come out of this objectively as one of the worst performing countries in the world
The counterfactual you need to consider is what would the situation been like had the vaccination roll out been as slow as it was in the EU. In that situation, deaths would have been higher still. I'm not sure how you can claim the programs were basically the same.
Have you looked at the stats recently. The UK is relatively middling, nowhere near worst in the world.
So the counterfactual is that more people would have died, that's not a great endorsement when so many had died anyway.
You lot called it world beating and I remember many here saying we were going to crush Europe and yet I don't hear those same people going off anymore, why not?
Again, you were talking about the vaccine program, saying it was about the same as in other countries. You are therefore suggesting that had the UK been as slow as other countries vaccinating it would have had no material effect on the figures. I think that assumption is wrong, it would have resulted in many more deaths that have been prevented from the cumulative million+ days' worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier. Of course that is a good thing.
The vaccine programme is not world beating, even though you lot said repeatedly it was.
What are you basing that claim on? The whole point of the program was to vaccinate the at risk groups as quickly as possible. The UK was one of the best countries on that metric.
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
Aren't you ignoring the cumulative millions of additional days worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier? Of course they were going to end up in similar places, although the numbers in France are definitely flattered by them having far more eligible.
We start from way behind with the amount of people that have died here, so what you're saying is that we end up still behind, what an achievement
You were talking about the vaccination program. The majority of deaths unfortunately happened before it got off the ground.
I said shame about all the people that have died.
The world beating vaccine program which isn't world beating + the deaths mean we come out of this objectively as one of the worst performing countries in the world
The counterfactual you need to consider is what would the situation been like had the vaccination roll out been as slow as it was in the EU. In that situation, deaths would have been higher still. I'm not sure how you can claim the programs were basically the same.
Have you looked at the stats recently. The UK is relatively middling, nowhere near worst in the world.
So the counterfactual is that more people would have died, that's not a great endorsement when so many had died anyway.
You lot called it world beating and I remember many here saying we were going to crush Europe and yet I don't hear those same people going off anymore, why not?
Again, you were talking about the vaccine program, saying it was about the same as in other countries. You are therefore suggesting that had the UK been as slow as other countries vaccinating it would have had no material effect on the figures. I think that assumption is wrong, it would have resulted in many more deaths that have been prevented from the cumulative million+ days' worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier. Of course that is a good thing.
The vaccine programme is not world beating, even though you lot said repeatedly it was.
As I keep saying, to celebrate that fewer people died when our death toll was already one of the highest in the world just makes you look silly
Preventing deaths by the rapid deployment of a vaccine shouldn't be celebrated?
And again with the false claim that it's one of the highest in the world. Check the figures.
Europe joined the vaccine race late, but the pace at which jabs have been going into arms in recent months has been staggering. France is now fractionally ahead of us on single jabs, while Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Spain and Portugal now all have a significantly greater proportion of their citizens fully vaccinated.
Europe has also been quicker to start vaccinating its teenagers. In France, Spain and Italy, more than half of those aged 12 to 18 are already vaccinated, for example.
Aren’t they just making the same point twice
All citizens inc kids
Kid specifically
Its vaccination rates per year group which count.
In particular the older year groups.
Vaccinating kids doesn't stop the hospitals filling up with unvaccinated oldies.
Obviously it does if it reduces transmission.
Of course we've long been familiar with anti-vaccine campaigners arguing that people should refuse vaccination on the basis of a naive calculation of narrow self-interest (which often involves assuming the majority will behave in a less short-sighted way). The disturbing thing is the extent to which this bone-headed viewpoint seems to have become prevalent.
The remit of Holyrood is the exercise of the devolved powers in Scotland. They have no legal authority (although obviously a political voice) about an independence referendum. You can’t justifiably claim that all votes for the SNP are automatically a vote for a referendum now
Similarly the election of Westminster MPs isn’t that significant because it is a decision for Westminster as a whole. Westminster’s decision should be based on whether there is a clear demand from the Scottish people for another independence referendum.
Opinion polls, while by no means perfect, are a reasonable way of judging this.
My son is currently studying Arend Lijphart’s Patterns of Democracy and we had an interesting debate about it yesterday. He defined and measured democracies between Executive and federal structures and, more relevantly, between majoritarian and consensus models. The Westminster model is almost uniquely majoritarian now in that it consistently gives almost absolute power to a plurality. In recent times we have recognised that certain important questions (and AV) needed at least a broader definition of majority if not a full on consensus based model so we have gone to referendums for them.
I think that this is right but that the Swiss probably overdo it. For independence, seats in Parliament are not really the issue, it is the absolute majority that matters. Whether we can evolve our politics to a more consensus based system where the interests and views of significant minorities are also reflected remains to be seen but the recent Brexit sagas suggest not.
That, of course, is what has driven the independence debate for a very long time. Scotland keeps getting governments it didn’t vote for and which most voters didn’t either. And that also tends to build sympathy for their position amongst the part of the rest of the electorate which is also on the wrong end of majoritarian politics.
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
Aren't you ignoring the cumulative millions of additional days worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier? Of course they were going to end up in similar places, although the numbers in France are definitely flattered by them having far more eligible.
We start from way behind with the amount of people that have died here, so what you're saying is that we end up still behind, what an achievement
You were talking about the vaccination program. The majority of deaths unfortunately happened before it got off the ground.
I said shame about all the people that have died.
The world beating vaccine program which isn't world beating + the deaths mean we come out of this objectively as one of the worst performing countries in the world
The counterfactual you need to consider is what would the situation been like had the vaccination roll out been as slow as it was in the EU. In that situation, deaths would have been higher still. I'm not sure how you can claim the programs were basically the same.
Have you looked at the stats recently. The UK is relatively middling, nowhere near worst in the world.
So the counterfactual is that more people would have died, that's not a great endorsement when so many had died anyway.
You lot called it world beating and I remember many here saying we were going to crush Europe and yet I don't hear those same people going off anymore, why not?
Again, you were talking about the vaccine program, saying it was about the same as in other countries. You are therefore suggesting that had the UK been as slow as other countries vaccinating it would have had no material effect on the figures. I think that assumption is wrong, it would have resulted in many more deaths that have been prevented from the cumulative million+ days' worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier. Of course that is a good thing.
The vaccine programme is not world beating, even though you lot said repeatedly it was.
What are you basing that claim on? The whole point of the program was to vaccinate the at risk groups as quickly as possible. The UK was one of the best countries on that metric.
It was claimed the UK's vaccine programme was world beating, that we would be the first country to jab ourselves back to normality.
Even the Government doesn't believe what you are saying, it's funny you still do
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
Sorry, how does a probability of 40% indicate that something is "likely"? As it happens, I agree with you to the extent that I think that it is more likely than the markets are indicating but they are indicating probably not, no doubt for the reasons @HYUFD expounds repeatedly.
Depends how you use the term "likely". To me it means something that has a very good chance of happening and 40% is certainly that. The alternative at 60% is more likely but the 40% chance is nevertheless likely, just not quite as likely.
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
I think people are significantly overestimating the chances of a 2nd referendum ever happening TBH (although it could just about happen in 2023-26 if there's a Lab minority gvt after 2023/24). In some ways it would have been better if Theresa May had called the SNP's bluff and held a referendum in the 2017-2019.
I can actually see how this stasis holding for quite a long time TBH as both the SNP establishment and Tories are both strangely happy with the status quo no matter what they say. I can't see what influence ALBA and the pro indy hardliners have over the SNP to actually force another vote as the SNP and Greens are very popular with a critical segment of soft indy SNP/Green voters who seem happy for the can to be continually kicked down the road.
If the SNP are happy with the status quo, being more wedded to dominating a devolved Scotland than to achieving an independent Scotland, there won't be another Sindy referendum anytime soon. I agree with you there. But I don't believe they are happy with it. It makes no sense. Some in the party will no doubt be secretly content with keeping busy rather sealing the deal but not the leadership and not the activists and not most of their voters. Independence is THE core value and policy of the party. To state that they aren't really committed to it is an extraordinary claim for which the evidence is slim to zero. I think they ARE committed to it and this will become clear over the next couple of years. They might or might not get their Sindy vote but I predict fireworks. It won't be "Boris says no", end of, however much some might love that idea.
The ambiguity of the SNP position is a part of the problem though. So, you are given some extra money from Whitehall because of Covid to be spent on health. Do you:
(a) spend it all on trying to eliminate the horrendous backlogs that have built up as a result of restricted capacity during the pandemic?
(b) buy those cancer drugs that are available in England but not in Scotland because there were thought to be more votes in free prescriptions?
(c) Abolish car parking charges at Scottish Hospitals.
The Scottish government has gone for (c). Once again, they think that this is the more vote friendly option and that is the determining factor. Running a country on this basis for an extended period has serious drawbacks. If the SNP would buckle down and start running the country instead of constantly trying to win another percent to independence we just might be in a better place. And so, ironically, might they.
I'll pass on that, it's territory I'm not hot on at all, but I agree with the general point that government by opinion poll is a bad thing. I criticize our lot for this, so if it's happening in Scotland too, same applies. My main gripe is with the oft-floated notion that "Nicola isn't bothered about Sindy cos she loves things as they are". I think that's a load of tosh based on little other than (jaundiced) projection. Course if she doesn't agitate hard and seriously for a Sindy vote in this parliament I'll change my mind. So let's see.
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
Aren't you ignoring the cumulative millions of additional days worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier? Of course they were going to end up in similar places, although the numbers in France are definitely flattered by them having far more eligible.
We start from way behind with the amount of people that have died here, so what you're saying is that we end up still behind, what an achievement
You were talking about the vaccination program. The majority of deaths unfortunately happened before it got off the ground.
I said shame about all the people that have died.
The world beating vaccine program which isn't world beating + the deaths mean we come out of this objectively as one of the worst performing countries in the world
The counterfactual you need to consider is what would the situation been like had the vaccination roll out been as slow as it was in the EU. In that situation, deaths would have been higher still. I'm not sure how you can claim the programs were basically the same.
Have you looked at the stats recently. The UK is relatively middling, nowhere near worst in the world.
So the counterfactual is that more people would have died, that's not a great endorsement when so many had died anyway.
You lot called it world beating and I remember many here saying we were going to crush Europe and yet I don't hear those same people going off anymore, why not?
Again, you were talking about the vaccine program, saying it was about the same as in other countries. You are therefore suggesting that had the UK been as slow as other countries vaccinating it would have had no material effect on the figures. I think that assumption is wrong, it would have resulted in many more deaths that have been prevented from the cumulative million+ days' worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier. Of course that is a good thing.
The vaccine programme is not world beating, even though you lot said repeatedly it was.
What are you basing that claim on? The whole point of the program was to vaccinate the at risk groups as quickly as possible. The UK was one of the best countries on that metric.
It was claimed the UK's vaccine programme was world beating, that we would be the first country to jab ourselves back to normality.
Even the Government doesn't believe what you are saying, it's funny you still do
The primary objective was to protect the vulnerable. I'd say that's been achieved. As for normality, the last time I checked almost all of the legal restrictions had been lifted. Not sure what the situation is like elsewhere, but it would be harder to be more normal than that given the circumstances.
Seems like on balance the "world beating" vaccine programme was just about as good as other countries.
Shame about all the people here that have died
Aren't you ignoring the cumulative millions of additional days worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier? Of course they were going to end up in similar places, although the numbers in France are definitely flattered by them having far more eligible.
We start from way behind with the amount of people that have died here, so what you're saying is that we end up still behind, what an achievement
You were talking about the vaccination program. The majority of deaths unfortunately happened before it got off the ground.
I said shame about all the people that have died.
The world beating vaccine program which isn't world beating + the deaths mean we come out of this objectively as one of the worst performing countries in the world
The counterfactual you need to consider is what would the situation been like had the vaccination roll out been as slow as it was in the EU. In that situation, deaths would have been higher still. I'm not sure how you can claim the programs were basically the same.
Have you looked at the stats recently. The UK is relatively middling, nowhere near worst in the world.
So the counterfactual is that more people would have died, that's not a great endorsement when so many had died anyway.
You lot called it world beating and I remember many here saying we were going to crush Europe and yet I don't hear those same people going off anymore, why not?
Again, you were talking about the vaccine program, saying it was about the same as in other countries. You are therefore suggesting that had the UK been as slow as other countries vaccinating it would have had no material effect on the figures. I think that assumption is wrong, it would have resulted in many more deaths that have been prevented from the cumulative million+ days' worth of protection offered by having the vaccinations earlier. Of course that is a good thing.
The vaccine programme is not world beating, even though you lot said repeatedly it was.
As I keep saying, to celebrate that fewer people died when our death toll was already one of the highest in the world just makes you look silly
Make a list of the countries which have had more effective vaccination programs than the UK.
And then make a list of all those countries which haven't.
You'll see that some countries have managed to vaccinate more, particularly of the minimal risk groups, but slower while other countries managed to vaccinate faster, particularly with the less effective three week gap, but fewer.
But how many vaccinated more and quicker compared with fewer and slower ?
There are many things that can be criticised about the UK's response to covid.
But to deny that the UK vaccination program has been a great success comes across as very bitter.
A very good study of the effectiveness of regular lateral flow tests in keeping Covid out of the workplace. It does, of course, require everyone to use them, which at this stage of the pandemic places limits on its effectiveness and/or utility.
Validation of an At-Home Direct Antigen Rapid Test for COVID-19 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783550 We sought to validate the effectiveness of DART and to test whether at-home testing with DART could prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in a coworking environment. In this cohort study of 257 individuals who collected 2951 sample pairs over the course of 6 months, we found that twice-weekly surveillance with DART detected infections in 15 individuals, with 96.3% sensitivity on days 0 through 3 of symptoms. Detection on day 3 is almost as effective as detection on day 1 for reducing the incidence of COVID-19, if 75% of a population is surveilled.6 The prevalence of disease dictates the frequency of testing and its effectiveness for controlling potential outbreaks. Limitations of this study include low infection rates among the study population. During this study, the prevalence of COVID-19 was between less than 1% and 8%.
Use of twice-weekly DART testing allowed the activities of the coworking sites to continue safely during the pandemic. Most of the positive participants reported that they did not recognize symptoms of COVID-19 until they received a positive result. Policies that rely on self-reported symptoms miss or delay detection and allow viral spread within communities...
Comments
You could make the reverse argument of course. Salmond's argument was that Scotland wanted higher taxes and better public funded services because Scotland was a more left leaning country than England and were being dominated by the English obsession with a small state. It's actually quite difficult to make that case against Boris who spends money like its going out of fashion and funded the furlough/grant scheme with extraordinary generosity.
I wonder, what was the general thrust of his alternative letter?
(enter Joe Biden stage left)
"No, seriously."
Forget about opinion polls, the recent Scottish elections are a mandate for the Scottish government to hold a Sindy ref. The UK government isn't obliged to grant one but they should because the case for it - the election result and the material change of circumstances (since 2014) of being involuntarily hauled out of the EU - is compelling.
The UK government should also grant a vote out of self-interest. It would probably return another No to independence, which would kill it as a serious proposition for a long time. "As in a generation?" shouts a quick but shallow thinking heckler. Ho ho. But in fact yes. Another No ends this. The SNP would have to backburner it or face a loss of votes and influence. Either way it's off the table.
As to whether a Sindy ref before 2025 is likely, the betting says yes, a probability of about 40%, and I agree with this. I think many pundits on here are underestimating the chances.
PAUSE
“”Wahoooooo!!!”
https://twitter.com/clark1995clark/status/1431729260138487812?s=21
Eg, given there's been much war talk recently, I become Dura Ace and am sent on a mission with a 60/40 chance of coming back alive. Am I likely to die on that mission? I'd say I am. I'm even more likely to scrape through it but I'm still likely to die.
Unfortunately our GP is on indefinite leave and we are on a long list for a regular doctor
It is very hard here to find a doctor and most people have the same issue as doctors are not accepting patients
She went on to say that our son goes to the drop in clinic if needed and he is still under his mental health specialist but the care is overstretched
I hope if nothing else it does help our fellow posters to understand just how serious a condition it is and is very difficult to treat
You cannot unsee that which you have seen
Although I take what you say about some finding it 'depressing, overwhelming, scary or lonely'. One of my nieces went somewhere where we all thought enjoy herself but by her first Christmas was home for good; the change from semi-rural to a city was too much.
I’ve said the criteria has already been met.
A majority of Holyrood seats won by parties with an explicit commitment to hold a new referendum.
2. England and Wales voted leave, Scotland and NI voted remain
3. The 2019 parliament abolished the UK trading zone and created a special EU-member NI zone
4. Scotland went into the new GB zone with England & Wales
5. The UK government can arbitrarily change the customs status of any nation without consultation of the electorate in that nation
It remains official policy / fantasy that there is no need for any customs / standards checks between the GB and NI customs zones. The same principle could therefore apply if Scotland joined NI in the EU zone. Based on official policy the only reason this hasn't happened is because Westminster refuses.
And, with that, I must be off.
I can actually see how this stasis holding for quite a long time TBH as both the SNP establishment and Tories are both strangely happy with the status quo no matter what they say. I can't see what influence ALBA and the pro indy hardliners have over the SNP to actually force another vote as the SNP and Greens are very popular with a critical segment of soft indy SNP/Green voters who seem happy for the can to be continually kicked down the road.
The remit of Holyrood is the exercise of the devolved powers in Scotland. They have no legal authority (although obviously a political voice) about an independence referendum. You can’t justifiably claim that all votes for the SNP are automatically a vote for a referendum now
Similarly the election of Westminster MPs isn’t that significant because it is a decision for Westminster as a whole. Westminster’s decision should be based on whether there is a clear demand from the Scottish people for another independence referendum.
Opinion polls, while by no means perfect, are a reasonable way of judging this.
Well tough. That's how the cookie crumbles.
On line videos of sorority hazing activities are not representative of student life.
All citizens inc kids
Kid specifically
In particular the older year groups.
Vaccinating kids doesn't stop the hospitals filling up with unvaccinated oldies.
On the 11.51 from Hednesford to New Street.
Fairly busy (I would say 40% occupancy).
The guard is wearing a mask.
So am I.
We’re the only two doing so.
Edit - one person who joined at Cannock is wearing one.
You ignore the fact that NI has been a difficult, almost intractable, problem for donkeys years. It has been fudged over with pretence and a blind eye, and it has needed extraordinary political manoeuvring to preserve the peace and create a kind of normality. None of this applies to Scotland.
The squeaky wheel got the oil.
I did a quick google and I nearly fell down a QAnon rabbit hole so stopped the research.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
Has anyone found a single report in any paper from any broadcaster, today, noting that cases in England are now unambiguously falling - down on average over the past week?
Admittedly, some tories think they can fix the way they fucked it all up with Brexit by using "fudge".
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9937279/Britains-toughest-Tiger-Headmistress-handpicked-Liz-Truss-boss-government-taskforce.html
Its blindingly obvious that the current "settlement" is anything but. English Brexiteer voters may be willing to listen to that lying twat and think "that's the truth that is" but Norniron unionists aren't that stupid.
Anyway, my point was that as the government are pretending that there is no need for customs and standards checks between the GB and NI(EU) zones, then they cannot claim that there would be the need for them had Scotland also joined this EU zone - or if it also leaves the GB zone.
Disquiet has been growing among Conservatives over the summer months.
https://twitter.com/ashcowburn/status/1431931673529274376?s=20
I think that this is right but that the Swiss probably overdo it. For independence, seats in Parliament are not really the issue, it is the absolute majority that matters. Whether we can evolve our politics to a more consensus based system where the interests and views of significant minorities are also reflected remains to be seen but the recent Brexit sagas suggest not.
None
Man City and Chelsea
I think like most words, it needs context and an awareness from the reader/listener that the word has multiple meanings.
Interesting how language and nuance evolves though.
Shame about all the people here that have died
It is then difficult to credibly say it is incorrect that they are likely to win the Premier League, because they are not odds on.
(a) spend it all on trying to eliminate the horrendous backlogs that have built up as a result of restricted capacity during the pandemic?
(b) buy those cancer drugs that are available in England but not in Scotland because there were thought to be more votes in free prescriptions?
(c) Abolish car parking charges at Scottish Hospitals.
The Scottish government has gone for (c). Once again, they think that this is the more vote friendly option and that is the determining factor. Running a country on this basis for an extended period has serious drawbacks. If the SNP would buckle down and start running the country instead of constantly trying to win another percent to independence we just might be in a better place. And so, ironically, might they.
But anyway, we understand each other now, which has to be a plus.
The world beating vaccine program which isn't world beating + the deaths mean we come out of this objectively as one of the worst performing countries in the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Canadian_federal_election#Campaign_period
Have you looked at the stats recently. The UK is relatively middling, nowhere near worst in the world.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
Decent tip by iirc, @Quincel a couple of days ago.
Just laid off the conservatives most seats @ ~2.24, having previously laid the libs @~1.25
Within the body of the INSA poll last night, a fascinating split between the former FRG and GDR:
Social Democrats: 25% | 21%
Union CDU/CSU: 22% | 17%
Greens: 18% | 15%
Free Democrats: 14% | 10%
Alternative for Germany: 10% | 15%
Left: 5% | 10%
Germany has been a unified state for over thirty years having been divided for forty-five. The differences in the political culture remain.
The gender split (Men vs Women):
Social Democrats: 23% | 25%
Union CDU/CSU: 22% | 20%
Greens: 16% | 18%
Free Democrats: 16% | 10%
Alternative for Germany: 12% | 10%
Left: 6% | 7%
I'm drawn to the big difference in the FDP vote but is there anything really surprising in that? Not sure.
Anyway, we have probably bored everyone else stupid with this by now.
And as a Tory you should approve of the elimination of bureaucracy involved in means testing prescriptions. As I recall, that in itself pays much of the additional cost of free prescriptions.
Mainstreet in particular is throwing out some extraordinary numbers for the Conservatives.
I would certainly want to wait for a large-sample poll from Counsel or IPSOS but I do agree Trudeau's position has worsened since the campaign started but the Conservatives are still a way from a majority.
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1431933518226067456
The only way I can explain this weekend’s headlines in UK right-wing newspapers is that the normal editors must be away on summer hols.
A brief respite from the cynical nationalism.
You lot called it world beating and I remember many here saying we were going to crush Europe and yet I don't hear those same people going off anymore, why not?
Now you can point out that some countries have eventually vaccinated more or vaccinated more of the minimal risk groups or vaccinated quicker because they used a three week gap or increase vaccination by placing extra restrictions on the whole population.
And that would be true but overall there are few countries which have done as well and then only marginally.
As to the people who have died take a look at other countries, in particular take a look at other countries once they have had full impact from Delta - it will be many months before covid ceases to be a major issue.
In focus groups, voters complain they are tiring of Johnson and see him as a ‘one-trick pony’ Brexiteer.
As I keep saying, to celebrate that fewer people died when our death toll was already one of the highest in the world just makes you look silly
And again with the false claim that it's one of the highest in the world. Check the figures.
Of course we've long been familiar with anti-vaccine campaigners arguing that people should refuse vaccination on the basis of a naive calculation of narrow self-interest (which often involves assuming the majority will behave in a less short-sighted way). The disturbing thing is the extent to which this bone-headed viewpoint seems to have become prevalent.
Even the Government doesn't believe what you are saying, it's funny you still do
And then make a list of all those countries which haven't.
You'll see that some countries have managed to vaccinate more, particularly of the minimal risk groups, but slower while other countries managed to vaccinate faster, particularly with the less effective three week gap, but fewer.
But how many vaccinated more and quicker compared with fewer and slower ?
There are many things that can be criticised about the UK's response to covid.
But to deny that the UK vaccination program has been a great success comes across as very bitter.
Validation of an At-Home Direct Antigen Rapid Test for COVID-19
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783550
We sought to validate the effectiveness of DART and to test whether at-home testing with DART could prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in a coworking environment. In this cohort study of 257 individuals who collected 2951 sample pairs over the course of 6 months, we found that twice-weekly surveillance with DART detected infections in 15 individuals, with 96.3% sensitivity on days 0 through 3 of symptoms. Detection on day 3 is almost as effective as detection on day 1 for reducing the incidence of COVID-19, if 75% of a population is surveilled.6 The prevalence of disease dictates the frequency of testing and its effectiveness for controlling potential outbreaks. Limitations of this study include low infection rates among the study population. During this study, the prevalence of COVID-19 was between less than 1% and 8%.
Use of twice-weekly DART testing allowed the activities of the coworking sites to continue safely during the pandemic. Most of the positive participants reported that they did not recognize symptoms of COVID-19 until they received a positive result. Policies that rely on self-reported symptoms miss or delay detection and allow viral spread within communities...