I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
What's the difference? Unless he thinks those concerns are meaningless wouldn't he want others to act in the same way?
He doesn't bang on about it which is kudos points for a start.
He doesn't act like it's ineffective/counterproductive or tell lies about it either.
It's like the difference between someone saying "I'm going to eat another cookie and I don't care if I gain weight" and someone else saying "the cookie diet makes people lose weight, I ready about in online, why are you trying to get kids to eat vegetables?"
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved for Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
In all fairness, I don’t recall Contrarian dissuading others from the vaccine either!
Not explicitly, but he does take every opportunity to cast shade on the effectiveness and need for the vaccines. He's clearly an anti-vaxxer; just doesn't want to own up to it.
What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?
I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.
Nothing has changed that opinion.
Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.
What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union
I would be interested in your reply
I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.
Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
So will you refuse indyref2
No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.
To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy
Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.
Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?
He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu
However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence
Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
How many times do we have to do this? 1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it 2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout
We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
As many times as you need to understand
The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be
The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence
It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland
I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.
The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one
No, it’s a totally different thing.
The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis
Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong
The idea that governments ought to have “popular support” clearly being too radical.
It’s a good idea if they want to be re-elected!
But, technically, they only need the support of a majority of members of the House of Commons
What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?
I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.
Nothing has changed that opinion.
Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.
What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union
I would be interested in your reply
I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.
Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
So will you refuse indyref2
No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.
To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy
Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.
Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?
He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu
However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence
Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
How many times do we have to do this? 1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it 2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout
We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
As many times as you need to understand
The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be
The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence
It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland
I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.
The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one
No, it’s a totally different thing.
The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis
Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong
I hear you. Don't change the rules of the game. So in Scotland the game is Holyrood and the rules are the electoral system. In May two parties ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new referendum. A record turnout of voters elected a record number of MSPs to that pledge with a clear majority.
This is popular support. As mandated by the electoral system. Yet you want to now negate this result and propose a different bar set by opinion polls. This is somehow more democratic than actual elections.
You want to keep the union? So why are you working so hard to cement the case for independence?
Holyrood MSPs have no authority over the topic so the number is irrelevant.
The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.
There seems to be clear logic in @Philip_Thompson 's position: if you are still fearful of covid, despite your vaccination status, you are at liberty to spend all your time in public wearing a FFP3 mask while avoiding anywhere that agitates your fear.
If you are not fearful, and want to try to live your life as normally as possible, then you are equally at liberty to abandon your mask.
I fit into the latter group, but realise that some people differ.
So what? Live and let live.
Lol - what people may or may not be fearful of is not the issue. Public health is the issue. There are plenty of wazzocks out there denying Covid and some of them win a Darwin Award by dying from it.
We're in the middle of another big spike of pox that isn't going away. You will of course insist that your government-mandated wayward behaviour has nothing to do with it.
Big spike? Deaths were down this week compared to the week before and were miniscule. If that's what you're considering a big spike then I'm quite happy to live with it.
As I said, you may be dismissive, the rest of the world is not. The pandemic (not endemic) is still ripping through the globe, with new variants being created and we know how much they are when we get them.
We may not be dying by the thousand every day thank God. But we are still a massively infected island, infection rates remain very very high compared to most other countries and its no wonder that we remain on restricted country lists in so many places.
I couldn't care less.
The entire planet needs to learn to live with the virus. Of course countries that haven't as successfully handled Covid19 as Britain so are less vaccinated than us will be terrified of Delta letting rip there - if I was in New Zealand or Australia right now it'd be a real concern.
I'm delighted that we vaccinated ourselves first ahead of the world. The rest of the world needs to catch up with us in learning to live with the virus, that's not a bad thing, its just a sign of our huge success that we got there before them.
Got it. So our vax rates now lagging behind chunks of Europe is cause for delight, and we are right and the rest of the world is wrong.
The problem of course is that whilst England can think like that it doesn't mean the rest of the world has to agree and do what we say. We're going to end up getting mandatory quarantine going anywhere off this island at this rate.
Which would still be better than mandatory isolation, travel bans and never ending lockdowns which NZ and Australia have now due to their low vaccination rates compared to ours
Absolutely agreed – the Damocles Sword Lockdown / Prison Island model is beyond oppressive. The New Zealanders are still in the obdeient-sanguine phase, but the Australians are starting to twitch.
The deal here: No Restrictions – Moderate Risk is probably the best we can hope for at the moment.
You get so excited when peculiar and scary right wing parties and candidates the world over benefit from centrist inertia.
Oh, the irony that Ardern is tossed assunder for her Covid response yet Johnson's star ascends higher.
"But Boris is the world's vaccine hero, he invented the vaccines" cry the fanbois.
He didn't invent them.
He did out of all major nations have by far the world's best policy of procuring them. An outstanding job even you must admit surely?
Yes the UK's vaccine rollout was excellent, and as the event took place on Johnson's watch he is entitled to claim the credit.
I can see "they jabber we jab" becoming the next "clearing up Labour's mess".
An entirely factual and valid point to win votes?
Yes I can too.
No, Philip. A mendacious soundbite repeated ad tedium because it's effective, is what I meant there.
But both statements are only effective because the public knows they are true.
If you don't want lines like "clearing up Labour's mess" to be effective then how about not getting in a mess than another government needs to clear up? Just a simple idea.
When there was a once-in-a-century global pandemic Labour didn't need to clear up the mess years later after the next election because the Tories thanks to a best-in-the-world vaccine procurement were able to solve it already first.
But when Labour were in office they trashed the finances and left them so atrocious it took years for the Tories to fix Labour's mess. Labour weren't able to fix the mess themselves.
Thankfully UK Plc finances are looking perfect at the moment... aren't they?
On More or Less this morning there was an item which pointed out that the cost of servicing our Government Debt is at an historic low. Rather less than 3% of GDP.
I thought fair point, you've tumbled my game, and then I realised your management of current debt is by way of forecast based on current low interest rates. With inflationary pressure aren't interest rates likely to fluctuate?
Quite obviously the government doesn't want interest rates to rise. Let's see if the BoE is really independent...
If the Government can "influence" the BoE to hold interest rates despite inflationary pressure, won't that fly in the face of logical economics. It may mean they hold off a financial crash until after 2024 and win a handsome majority, but won't the whole house of cards crumble soon after.
I am intrigued as to how wage and price inflation works without interest rate rises, and that we can increase spending with only modest tax increases, if any meaningful ones at all.
Or is the increase in taxation from wage inflation and an increase in VAT from RPI inflation going to do Sunak's work for him? It looks implausible to me
Back in 2010, I had a discussion with my bank analyst colleague who was delighted he had managed to get a 5 year fixed mortgage at (if memory serves me right) around 4.5pc. He was convinced interest rates had to return to the norm.
The fact is the BoE and the Treasury knows any increase in interest rates by a substantial amount is going to cause carnage for consumers who have mortgages (and often are on interest only payments). The only way you can get round this is to have sufficient wage inflation whereby consumers’ income can support an increase in the payments. Even then, you would need several years of such wage inflation .
Don't worry everyone. The Global Financial Crisis was Labour trashing the finances National debt of 65% was crippling and we almost went bankrupt National debt of 100% and rising is affordable
Perhaps some consistency may help PB Tories going foreard
National debt wasn't the issue in 2010. The deficit was the issue in 2010.
Hypothetically it would be much better to a national debt of 110% with a structural 1% surplus than a national debt of 70% with a structural 10% deficit.
I can see through your smoke and mirrors.
No smokes and mirrors. The issue in 2010 was always (by those who know what they're talking about) the deficit.
Only an idiot who didn't understand economics ever said debt in 2010.
Surely the analogy used by Osborne about "paying off the nation's credit card" was exclusively refencing the debt.
Was he wrong, or are you rewriting the narrative?
No, debt was never going to be repaid. The credit card is the deficit.
Credit cards are good for current expenditure so long as you pay them off in full each month. That is having no deficit. Credit cards are ruinous if you can't repay leading to escalating debt, charges and ultimately penury.
He never said paying off the nation's mortgage, student loan and other long term debts. That's debt.
English Tory "unionists" don't get it. This is the big opportunity to settle the issue. A clear mandate in Holyrood for a new vote. But no clear support for a yes vote.
Say "we accept the democratic will. Referendum next year, but we are going to write into law that the result of this one is FINAL and no further referenda will be entertained by Westminster until 2040 or later. Get it done now.
The longer this goes on, with you lot denying democracy, the greater the chances of a yes vote.
From Boris's point of view it's not worth the risk. There may not be clear support for a yes vote but it is close, and their support increased over the campaign last time, and the potential outcome if the gamble fails is catastropic.
From that perspective dragging feet and ignoring the will of the scottish parliament (and through them the voters who put them them) in the hopes that something will come up and support will drop may well not work, it may well outrage, but the appeal to Boris of kicking the can down the road with a potential risk it makes things worse is obvious against the potential risk that there is failure now.
Haven’t read last few threads so apologies if covered.
But when I look at Scotland’s post back to school case data, the noises from Israel of waning vaccine immunity, and the bizarre hesitation of the JCVI in recommending boosters, are we not headed for a brick wall in a pretty short period of time?
Haven’t read last few threads so apologies if covered.
But when I look at Scotland’s post back to school case data, the noises from Israel of waning vaccine immunity, and the bizarre hesitation of the JCVI in recommending boosters, are we not headed for a brick wall in a pretty short period of time?
I am not convinced on the waning of immunity, at least for serious disease. The vaxxed admissions are at all age ranges, not concentrated in batches 1 and 2. They appear to be break through cases rather than wearing off.
Haven’t read last few threads so apologies if covered.
But when I look at Scotland’s post back to school case data, the noises from Israel of waning vaccine immunity, and the bizarre hesitation of the JCVI in recommending boosters, are we not headed for a brick wall in a pretty short period of time?
I am not convinced on the waning of immunity, at least for serious disease. The vaxxed admissions are at all age ranges, not concentrated in batches 1 and 2. They appear to be break through cases rather than wearing off.
Scotland's case rate is up about 5 fold since back to school and still climbing. If that happens UK wide, we're at 150k cases a day. Problem no?
Haven’t read last few threads so apologies if covered.
But when I look at Scotland’s post back to school case data, the noises from Israel of waning vaccine immunity, and the bizarre hesitation of the JCVI in recommending boosters, are we not headed for a brick wall in a pretty short period of time?
I am not convinced on the waning of immunity, at least for serious disease. The vaxxed admissions are at all age ranges, not concentrated in batches 1 and 2. They appear to be break through cases rather than wearing off.
Scotland's case rate is up about 5 fold since back to school and still climbing. If that happens UK wide, we're at 150k cases a day. Problem no?
Oh yes of course. I am expecting quite a rise in Sept/early October.
I just don't think that waning immunity will have a lot to do with it. More to do with breakthrough cases and high exposure rates, due to a lot of circulating virus.
What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?
I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.
Nothing has changed that opinion.
Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.
What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union
I would be interested in your reply
I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.
Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
So will you refuse indyref2
No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.
To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy
Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.
Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?
He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu
However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence
Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
How many times do we have to do this? 1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it 2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout
We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
As many times as you need to understand
The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be
The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence
It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland
I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.
The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one
No, it’s a totally different thing.
The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis
Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong
I hear you. Don't change the rules of the game. So in Scotland the game is Holyrood and the rules are the electoral system. In May two parties ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new referendum. A record turnout of voters elected a record number of MSPs to that pledge with a clear majority.
This is popular support. As mandated by the electoral system. Yet you want to now negate this result and propose a different bar set by opinion polls. This is somehow more democratic than actual elections.
You want to keep the union? So why are you working so hard to cement the case for independence?
Holyrood MSPs have no authority over the topic so the number is irrelevant.
The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.
So if MSPs are irrelevant why are votes cast for MSPs relevant?
Again. "MSPs are irrelevant" is not an argument to maintain union. It is the opposite.
English Tory "unionists" don't get it. This is the big opportunity to settle the issue. A clear mandate in Holyrood for a new vote. But no clear support for a yes vote.
Say "we accept the democratic will. Referendum next year, but we are going to write into law that the result of this one is FINAL and no further referenda will be entertained by Westminster until 2040 or later. Get it done now.
The longer this goes on, with you lot denying democracy, the greater the chances of a yes vote.
Absolute rubbish.
Give in to the Nationalists and give them an indyref2 before a generation is up and even if No narrowly wins again the Nationalists will be back for indyref3, indyref4, indyref5 etc until they get the result they want.
If the UK government gives in to the Nationalists about turn on their insistence in 2014 it was a once in a generation vote there is nothing to stop the Nationalists demanding a referendum every year if they want one.
No Parliament can bind its successors so if Westminster gives into the Nationalists now there is nothing to stop the Nationalists believing a future Parliament will give into them and have an indyref when they want one.
It is not even as if the Scottish people want one now either, the polling is clear they do not want one until at least 2026, so this UK Tory government must stick to its guns and until the next UK general election say a firm 'NO!!'
Haven’t read last few threads so apologies if covered.
But when I look at Scotland’s post back to school case data, the noises from Israel of waning vaccine immunity, and the bizarre hesitation of the JCVI in recommending boosters, are we not headed for a brick wall in a pretty short period of time?
I am not convinced on the waning of immunity, at least for serious disease. The vaxxed admissions are at all age ranges, not concentrated in batches 1 and 2. They appear to be break through cases rather than wearing off.
Scotland's case rate is up about 5 fold since back to school and still climbing. If that happens UK wide, we're at 150k cases a day. Problem no?
No. There is no longer a pandemic. Anyone thinking there is is "hysterical".
Haven’t read last few threads so apologies if covered.
But when I look at Scotland’s post back to school case data, the noises from Israel of waning vaccine immunity, and the bizarre hesitation of the JCVI in recommending boosters, are we not headed for a brick wall in a pretty short period of time?
I am not convinced on the waning of immunity, at least for serious disease. The vaxxed admissions are at all age ranges, not concentrated in batches 1 and 2. They appear to be break through cases rather than wearing off.
I think the question is where we may be in another 6-8 weeks if we don't provide booster shots beyond the clinically vulnerable.
It's been my fear since the vaccination programme began - we will get everyone (more or less) vaccinated and then sit back thinking we've won and the job's done just as winter approaches.
Don't worry everyone. The Global Financial Crisis was Labour trashing the finances National debt of 65% was crippling and we almost went bankrupt National debt of 100% and rising is affordable
Perhaps some consistency may help PB Tories going foreard
National debt wasn't the issue in 2010. The deficit was the issue in 2010.
Hypothetically it would be much better to a national debt of 110% with a structural 1% surplus than a national debt of 70% with a structural 10% deficit.
I can see through your smoke and mirrors.
No smokes and mirrors. The issue in 2010 was always (by those who know what they're talking about) the deficit.
Only an idiot who didn't understand economics ever said debt in 2010.
Surely the analogy used by Osborne about "paying off the nation's credit card" was exclusively refencing the debt.
Was he wrong, or are you rewriting the narrative?
No, debt was never going to be repaid. The credit card is the deficit.
Credit cards are good for current expenditure so long as you pay them off in full each month. That is having no deficit. Credit cards are ruinous if you can't repay leading to escalating debt, charges and ultimately penury.
He never said paying off the nation's mortgage, student loan and other long term debts. That's debt.
Haven’t read last few threads so apologies if covered.
But when I look at Scotland’s post back to school case data, the noises from Israel of waning vaccine immunity, and the bizarre hesitation of the JCVI in recommending boosters, are we not headed for a brick wall in a pretty short period of time?
I am not convinced on the waning of immunity, at least for serious disease. The vaxxed admissions are at all age ranges, not concentrated in batches 1 and 2. They appear to be break through cases rather than wearing off.
I think the question is where we may be in another 6-8 weeks if we don't provide booster shots beyond the clinically vulnerable.
It's been my fear since the vaccination programme began - we will get everyone (more or less) vaccinated and then sit back thinking we've won and the job's done just as winter approaches.
I can't find it now but there was a direct quite from Israel saying they thought they'd won the war but in fact they'd only won the battle.
Haven’t read last few threads so apologies if covered.
But when I look at Scotland’s post back to school case data, the noises from Israel of waning vaccine immunity, and the bizarre hesitation of the JCVI in recommending boosters, are we not headed for a brick wall in a pretty short period of time?
I am not convinced on the waning of immunity, at least for serious disease. The vaxxed admissions are at all age ranges, not concentrated in batches 1 and 2. They appear to be break through cases rather than wearing off.
Scotland's case rate is up about 5 fold since back to school and still climbing. If that happens UK wide, we're at 150k cases a day. Problem no?
Oh yes of course. I am expecting quite a rise in Sept/early October.
I just don't think that waning immunity will have a lot to do with it. More to do with breakthrough cases and high exposure rates, due to a lot of circulating virus.
You see my worry is the two combined. A very high case rate, which by roughly October might be combined with a concerning drop off in immunity to serious illness in the early vaccine cohort. Am I having a Leon style panic or will we be saying in 8 weeks, why the hell didn't they realise sooner?
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
Partly because he has a coherent philosophical position and partly because he isn’t an arse
Sure, that’s the reason PBers justify it with. Yet both posters are antivaxxers, and my point is that only one of them is routinely held up as an example.
Lots of medication is tested on animals, as you know…
English Tory "unionists" don't get it. This is the big opportunity to settle the issue. A clear mandate in Holyrood for a new vote. But no clear support for a yes vote.
Say "we accept the democratic will. Referendum next year, but we are going to write into law that the result of this one is FINAL and no further referenda will be entertained by Westminster until 2040 or later. Get it done now.
The longer this goes on, with you lot denying democracy, the greater the chances of a yes vote.
Absolute rubbish.
Give in to the Nationalists and give them an indyref2 before a generation is up and even if No narrowly wins again the Nationalists will be back for indyref3, indyref4, indyref5 etc until they get the result they want.
If the UK government gives in to the Nationalists about turn on their insistence in 2014 it was a once in a generation vote there is nothing to stop the Nationalists demanding a referendum every year if they want one.
No Parliament can bind its successors so if Westminster gives into the Nationalists now there is nothing to stop the Nationalists believing a future Parliament will give into them and have an indyref when they want one.
It is not even as if the Scottish people want one now either, the polling is clear they do not want one until at least 2026, so this UK Tory government must stick to its guns and until the next UK general election say a firm 'NO!!'
To be fair, I’m rather enjoying seeing the new Green - SNP detail unfold. Self identification, COVID passports for large events - interesting dynamics
💥 EXCLUSIVE; The UK has drawn up contingency plans to move Trident from Scotland to US or France in the event of an independence vote. Another option is to seek an independent British territory within indy Scotland.
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
He also doesn’t bitch about lockdowns and endlessly accuse the rest of us of being Fascist automatons for accepting them.
Haven’t read last few threads so apologies if covered.
But when I look at Scotland’s post back to school case data, the noises from Israel of waning vaccine immunity, and the bizarre hesitation of the JCVI in recommending boosters, are we not headed for a brick wall in a pretty short period of time?
I am not convinced on the waning of immunity, at least for serious disease. The vaxxed admissions are at all age ranges, not concentrated in batches 1 and 2. They appear to be break through cases rather than wearing off.
I think the question is where we may be in another 6-8 weeks if we don't provide booster shots beyond the clinically vulnerable.
It's been my fear since the vaccination programme began - we will get everyone (more or less) vaccinated and then sit back thinking we've won and the job's done just as winter approaches.
I can't find it now but there was a direct quite from Israel saying they thought they'd won the war but in fact they'd only won the battle.
I have to say I'm starting to get worried.
I don't honestly want a run in with the coronavirus and while I think I would be all right I'm far from certain. I accept there may be a scientific argument for promoting immunity via infection but for some that is going to be a very difficult proposition. I thought we had ordered more than enough doses for a general booster vaccination programme so I fail to see the reticence here.
I suspect as the vaccines improve the duration of protection will also be extended so we can go a year between booster vaccinations and it becomes like the current influenza vaccination.
Option two is to move the Trident base to an allied country, either Kings Bay, Georgia in the United States (where American subs are based) or Île Longue in Brittany (where French subs are located). But both options would be somewhat politically difficult
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
What's the difference? Unless he thinks those concerns are meaningless wouldn't he want others to act in the same way?
He doesn't bang on about it which is kudos points for a start.
He doesn't act like it's ineffective/counterproductive or tell lies about it either.
It's like the difference between someone saying "I'm going to eat another cookie and I don't care if I gain weight" and someone else saying "the cookie diet makes people lose weight, I ready about in online, why are you trying to get kids to eat vegetables?"
No, that’s unfair, I think. As far as I know Contrarian hasn’t dissuaded anyone from getting the vax. (I am not defending his position, I think it’s ludicrous and have told him so several times. But I also think Dura’s position is ludicrous, and have told him so, unlike many other PBers…)
What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?
I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.
Nothing has changed that opinion.
Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.
What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union
I would be interested in your reply
I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.
Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
So will you refuse indyref2
No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.
To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy
Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.
Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?
He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu
However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence
Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
How many times do we have to do this? 1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it 2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout
We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
As many times as you need to understand
The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be
The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence
It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland
I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.
The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one
No, it’s a totally different thing.
The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis
Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong
I hear you. Don't change the rules of the game. So in Scotland the game is Holyrood and the rules are the electoral system. In May two parties ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new referendum. A record turnout of voters elected a record number of MSPs to that pledge with a clear majority.
This is popular support. As mandated by the electoral system. Yet you want to now negate this result and propose a different bar set by opinion polls. This is somehow more democratic than actual elections.
You want to keep the union? So why are you working so hard to cement the case for independence?
Holyrood MSPs have no authority over the topic so the number is irrelevant.
The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.
So if MSPs are irrelevant why are votes cast for MSPs relevant?
Again. "MSPs are irrelevant" is not an argument to maintain union. It is the opposite.
MSPs are only relevant in terms of Scottish domestic policy, not the union, the future of which is reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998.
In fact legally Westminster could scrap Holyrood tomorrow, repeal the Scotland Act and impose direct rule as was the the case before 1999, much as Madrid did over Catalonia temporarily if Nationalists become too bolshy and go beyond their remit to try and break up the Union without UK government agreement.
However most probably just ignoring the SNP will be fine, legally there is nothing they can do to end the Union if Westminster does not agree
💥 EXCLUSIVE; The UK has drawn up contingency plans to move Trident from Scotland to US or France in the event of an independence vote. Another option is to seek an independent British territory within indy Scotland.
That's not new at all. Been discussed here several times. Inclouding the UK enclave thgeory. Pointless as any party which agreed to it would lose at the next election. RN would also go spare .
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
What's the difference? Unless he thinks those concerns are meaningless wouldn't he want others to act in the same way?
He doesn't bang on about it which is kudos points for a start.
He doesn't act like it's ineffective/counterproductive or tell lies about it either.
It's like the difference between someone saying "I'm going to eat another cookie and I don't care if I gain weight" and someone else saying "the cookie diet makes people lose weight, I ready about in online, why are you trying to get kids to eat vegetables?"
No, that’s unfair, I think. As far as I know Contrarian hasn’t dissuaded anyone from getting the vax. (I am not defending his position, I think it’s ludicrous and have told him so several times. But I also think Dura’s position is ludicrous, and have told him so, unlike many other PBers…)
With respect, you are missing the point. Contrarian doesn’t want lockdowns or vaccines. Since it one or the other or hundreds of thousands of deaths, that’s sheer hypocrisy.
If s/he don’t want vaccines, that’s his/her choice, but there are consequences to that that s/he simply won’t consider or even acknowledge.
It doesn’t help s/he’s a nasty, dishonest, abusive bully who has always come with insults and false information to try and bolster his impossible position. Dura Ace can be pretty fiery but is also full of useful information and some shrewd insights on military matters.
Haven’t read last few threads so apologies if covered.
But when I look at Scotland’s post back to school case data, the noises from Israel of waning vaccine immunity, and the bizarre hesitation of the JCVI in recommending boosters, are we not headed for a brick wall in a pretty short period of time?
I am not convinced on the waning of immunity, at least for serious disease. The vaxxed admissions are at all age ranges, not concentrated in batches 1 and 2. They appear to be break through cases rather than wearing off.
Scotland's case rate is up about 5 fold since back to school and still climbing. If that happens UK wide, we're at 150k cases a day. Problem no?
Oh yes of course. I am expecting quite a rise in Sept/early October.
I just don't think that waning immunity will have a lot to do with it. More to do with breakthrough cases and high exposure rates, due to a lot of circulating virus.
You see my worry is the two combined. A very high case rate, which by roughly October might be combined with a concerning drop off in immunity to serious illness in the early vaccine cohort. Am I having a Leon style panic or will we be saying in 8 weeks, why the hell didn't they realise sooner?
Yes, you might be right. We haven't reached the final chapter yet.
I just think that declarations of victory and normality are premature. Certainly while our staff are press-ganged to an under strength ICU things are not over.
Haven’t read last few threads so apologies if covered.
But when I look at Scotland’s post back to school case data, the noises from Israel of waning vaccine immunity, and the bizarre hesitation of the JCVI in recommending boosters, are we not headed for a brick wall in a pretty short period of time?
I am not convinced on the waning of immunity, at least for serious disease. The vaxxed admissions are at all age ranges, not concentrated in batches 1 and 2. They appear to be break through cases rather than wearing off.
Scotland's case rate is up about 5 fold since back to school and still climbing. If that happens UK wide, we're at 150k cases a day. Problem no?
No. There is no longer a pandemic. Anyone thinking there is is "hysterical".
Stick to the script! Churchillian war leader and world Statesman Boris Johnson has gone into battle and singlehandedly beaten the Covid19 foe from his refrigerated bunker armed only with his hi-viz vest.
The tragedy is, that seems to be the narrative the voters have swallowed as well as the PB faithful.
English Tory "unionists" don't get it. This is the big opportunity to settle the issue. A clear mandate in Holyrood for a new vote. But no clear support for a yes vote.
Say "we accept the democratic will. Referendum next year, but we are going to write into law that the result of this one is FINAL and no further referenda will be entertained by Westminster until 2040 or later. Get it done now.
The longer this goes on, with you lot denying democracy, the greater the chances of a yes vote.
Absolute rubbish.
Give in to the Nationalists and give them an indyref2 before a generation is up and even if No narrowly wins again the Nationalists will be back for indyref3, indyref4, indyref5 etc until they get the result they want.
If the UK government gives in to the Nationalists about turn on their insistence in 2014 it was a once in a generation vote there is nothing to stop the Nationalists demanding a referendum every year if they want one.
No Parliament can bind its successors so if Westminster gives into the Nationalists now there is nothing to stop the Nationalists believing a future Parliament will give into them and have an indyref when they want one.
It is not even as if the Scottish people want one now either, the polling is clear they do not want one until at least 2026, so this UK Tory government must stick to its guns and until the next UK general election say a firm 'NO!!'
You're happy to impose rules on a different country, yet you claimed today that rules applying to the Conservative Party and its members were not applicable to Scotland because Scotland.
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
He also doesn’t bitch about lockdowns and endlessly accuse the rest of us of being Fascist automatons for accepting them.
Nevertheless, he is still an antivaxxer, a fact which is cravenly ignored by many sycophantic PBers.
What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?
I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.
Nothing has changed that opinion.
Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.
What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union
I would be interested in your reply
I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.
Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
So will you refuse indyref2
No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.
To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy
Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.
Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?
He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu
However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence
Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
How many times do we have to do this? 1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it 2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout
We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
As many times as you need to understand
The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be
The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence
It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland
I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.
The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one
No, it’s a totally different thing.
The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis
Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong
I hear you. Don't change the rules of the game. So in Scotland the game is Holyrood and the rules are the electoral system. In May two parties ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new referendum. A record turnout of voters elected a record number of MSPs to that pledge with a clear majority.
This is popular support. As mandated by the electoral system. Yet you want to now negate this result and propose a different bar set by opinion polls. This is somehow more democratic than actual elections.
You want to keep the union? So why are you working so hard to cement the case for independence?
Holyrood MSPs have no authority over the topic so the number is irrelevant.
The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.
So if MSPs are irrelevant why are votes cast for MSPs relevant?
Again. "MSPs are irrelevant" is not an argument to maintain union. It is the opposite.
MSPs are only relevant in terms of Scottish domestic policy, not the union, the future of which is reserved to Westminster and the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998.
In fact legally Westminster could scrap Holyrood tomorrow, repeal the Scotland Act and impose direct rule as was the the case before 1999, much as Madrid did over Catalonia temporarily if Nationalists become too bolshy and go beyond their remit to try and break up the Union without UK government agreement.
However most probably just ignoring the SNP will be fine, legally there is nothing they can do to end the Union if Westminster does not agree
"X is X because I and my chums say it is, without asking the Scots [however defined]".
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
He also doesn’t bitch about lockdowns and endlessly accuse the rest of us of being Fascist automatons for accepting them.
Nevertheless, he is still an antivaxxer, a fact which is cravenly ignored by many sycophantic PBers.
If he’s opposed to vaccines, fine. That’s his prerogative. I think he’s wrong, but that’s his lookout.
If Contrarian is opposed to vaccines that is also his(?) prerogative.
However, as Contrarian has spent ages whinging about lockdown complaining it is part of some kind of Illuminati plot to take over the world and is now refusing to take the one action that would bring it to an end apparently for no other reason than that he wants to be proved right, the rest of us are entitled to call him an idiot.
Particularly when the claims/evidence put forward to support this insupportable position are clearly lies.
If you can show where Dura Ace has done either of those, I’ll concede your point, but I’ve never seen it.
💥 EXCLUSIVE; The UK has drawn up contingency plans to move Trident from Scotland to US or France in the event of an independence vote. Another option is to seek an independent British territory within indy Scotland.
That's not new at all. Been discussed here several times. Inclouding the UK enclave thgeory. Pointless as any party which agreed to it would lose at the next election. RN would also go spare .
We have a sovereign base on Cyprus, why not at Falsane? (Genuine question, I am not across the issue at all)
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
He also doesn’t bitch about lockdowns and endlessly accuse the rest of us of being Fascist automatons for accepting them.
Nevertheless, he is still an antivaxxer, a fact which is cravenly ignored by many sycophantic PBers.
No, I don't think that he has disputed that vaccines are effective, just that his ethical beliefs prevent him from taking one.
💥 EXCLUSIVE; The UK has drawn up contingency plans to move Trident from Scotland to US or France in the event of an independence vote. Another option is to seek an independent British territory within indy Scotland.
That's not new at all. Been discussed here several times. Inclouding the UK enclave thgeory. Pointless as any party which agreed to it would lose at the next election. RN would also go spare .
We have a sovereign base on Cyprus, why not at Falsane? (Genuine question, I am not across the issue at all)
Because Indy Scotland would not allow it, certainly for longer than a transition. Though I note that the RN had bases in the IFS until the late Thirties.
In any case we should scrap them as obsolete cold War relics.
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
He also doesn’t bitch about lockdowns and endlessly accuse the rest of us of being Fascist automatons for accepting them.
Nevertheless, he is still an antivaxxer, a fact which is cravenly ignored by many sycophantic PBers.
If he’s opposed to vaccines, fine. That’s his prerogative. I think he’s wrong, but that’s his lookout.
If Contrarian is opposed to vaccines that is also his(?) prerogative.
However, as Contrarian has spent ages whinging about lockdown complaining it is part of some kind of Illuminati plot to take over the world and is now refusing to take the one action that would bring it to an end apparently for no other reason than that he wants to be proved right, the rest of us are entitled to call him an idiot.
Particularly when the claims/evidence put forward to support this insupportable position are clearly lies.
If you can show where Dura Ace has done either of those, I’ll concede your point, but I’ve never seen it.
I said and say nothing of the above, I merely pointed out that Dura is an antivaxxer and is rarely if ever mentioned when the topic arises.
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
He also doesn’t bitch about lockdowns and endlessly accuse the rest of us of being Fascist automatons for accepting them.
Nevertheless, he is still an antivaxxer, a fact which is cravenly ignored by many sycophantic PBers.
If he’s opposed to vaccines, fine. That’s his prerogative. I think he’s wrong, but that’s his lookout.
If Contrarian is opposed to vaccines that is also his(?) prerogative.
However, as Contrarian has spent ages whinging about lockdown complaining it is part of some kind of Illuminati plot to take over the world and is now refusing to take the one action that would bring it to an end apparently for no other reason than that he wants to be proved right, the rest of us are entitled to call him an idiot.
Particularly when the claims/evidence put forward to support this insupportable position are clearly lies.
If you can show where Dura Ace has done either of those, I’ll concede your point, but I’ve never seen it.
I said and say nothing of the above, I merely pointed out that Dura is an antivaxxer and is rarely if ever mentioned when the topic arises.
And I have explained why.
What is your problem with that?
It’s not that Contrarian is opposed to vaccines that’s the problem, it’s the false information and the determination to have neither vaccines or lockdown that’s the issue, coupled with the sheer bile he pours over other posters.
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
He also doesn’t bitch about lockdowns and endlessly accuse the rest of us of being Fascist automatons for accepting them.
Nevertheless, he is still an antivaxxer, a fact which is cravenly ignored by many sycophantic PBers.
No, I don't think that he has disputed that vaccines are effective, just that his ethical beliefs prevent him from taking one.
Nor has Contrarian disputed their effectiveness, in my knowledge. There is no difference in their position other than the reason (animals in Dura’s case; government control in Contrarian’s).
💥 EXCLUSIVE; The UK has drawn up contingency plans to move Trident from Scotland to US or France in the event of an independence vote. Another option is to seek an independent British territory within indy Scotland.
That's not new at all. Been discussed here several times. Inclouding the UK enclave thgeory. Pointless as any party which agreed to it would lose at the next election. RN would also go spare .
We have a sovereign base on Cyprus, why not at Falsane? (Genuine question, I am not across the issue at all)
Because Indy Scotland would not allow it, certainly for longer than a transition. Though I note that the RN had bases in the IFS until the late Thirties.
In any case we should scrap them as obsolete cold War relics.
Putin's Russia is more of a threat to us than the USSR was under Gorbachev
Portillo in Cornwall (Ch 5) has found a Cornish speaker/singer. The programme tells there are 13,000 speakers of the language. I thought the belief here is that it has died out.
💥 EXCLUSIVE; The UK has drawn up contingency plans to move Trident from Scotland to US or France in the event of an independence vote. Another option is to seek an independent British territory within indy Scotland.
That's not new at all. Been discussed here several times. Inclouding the UK enclave thgeory. Pointless as any party which agreed to it would lose at the next election. RN would also go spare .
We have a sovereign base on Cyprus, why not at Falsane? (Genuine question, I am not across the issue at all)
Fair enough. But Akrotiri (and Dhekelia) were carved out of Cyprus ab initio. Not out of a nation which has been intact for longer than the USA. Nor a massive nuke base and facility just too close to the Central Belt for comfort.
From the UK's point of view, also, it is hopelessly isolated inland. Not even an airfield. Gib and the Cyprus bases are accessible from air and sea. Not those ones. Road and sea blockades are absurdly easy. And I can't imagine MoD or the RN being happy.
Haven’t read last few threads so apologies if covered.
But when I look at Scotland’s post back to school case data, the noises from Israel of waning vaccine immunity, and the bizarre hesitation of the JCVI in recommending boosters, are we not headed for a brick wall in a pretty short period of time?
I am not convinced on the waning of immunity, at least for serious disease. The vaxxed admissions are at all age ranges, not concentrated in batches 1 and 2. They appear to be break through cases rather than wearing off.
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
He also doesn’t bitch about lockdowns and endlessly accuse the rest of us of being Fascist automatons for accepting them.
Nevertheless, he is still an antivaxxer, a fact which is cravenly ignored by many sycophantic PBers.
If he’s opposed to vaccines, fine. That’s his prerogative. I think he’s wrong, but that’s his lookout.
If Contrarian is opposed to vaccines that is also his(?) prerogative.
However, as Contrarian has spent ages whinging about lockdown complaining it is part of some kind of Illuminati plot to take over the world and is now refusing to take the one action that would bring it to an end apparently for no other reason than that he wants to be proved right, the rest of us are entitled to call him an idiot.
Particularly when the claims/evidence put forward to support this insupportable position are clearly lies.
If you can show where Dura Ace has done either of those, I’ll concede your point, but I’ve never seen it.
I said and say nothing of the above, I merely pointed out that Dura is an antivaxxer and is rarely if ever mentioned when the topic arises.
And I have explained why.
What is your problem with that?
I don’t have any problem with your explanation. I merely point out that Dura is an antivaxxer with a ludicrous position.
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
He also doesn’t bitch about lockdowns and endlessly accuse the rest of us of being Fascist automatons for accepting them.
Nevertheless, he is still an antivaxxer, a fact which is cravenly ignored by many sycophantic PBers.
No, I don't think that he has disputed that vaccines are effective, just that his ethical beliefs prevent him from taking one.
Nor has Contrarian disputed their effectiveness, in my knowledge. There is no difference in their position other than the reason (animals in Dura’s case; government control in Contrarian’s).
US weapons left in Afghanistan reportedly being shipped to Iran.
Iran would certainly be able to fuel the Humvees, and have a reasonable stab at maintaining the higher tech stuff that the Taliban would struggle with.
It is interesting that the Taliban seem to have much better relations with Iran than previously. A common enemy in ISIS and Salafism maybe?
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
He also doesn’t bitch about lockdowns and endlessly accuse the rest of us of being Fascist automatons for accepting them.
Nevertheless, he is still an antivaxxer, a fact which is cravenly ignored by many sycophantic PBers.
No, I don't think that he has disputed that vaccines are effective, just that his ethical beliefs prevent him from taking one.
Nor has Contrarian disputed their effectiveness, in my knowledge. There is no difference in their position other than the reason (animals in Dura’s case; government control in Contrarian’s).
What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?
I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.
Nothing has changed that opinion.
Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.
What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union
I would be interested in your reply
I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.
Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
So will you refuse indyref2
No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.
To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy
Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.
Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?
He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu
However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence
Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
How many times do we have to do this? 1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it 2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout
We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
As many times as you need to understand
The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be
The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence
It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland
I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.
The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one
No, it’s a totally different thing.
The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis
Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong
I hear you. Don't change the rules of the game. So in Scotland the game is Holyrood and the rules are the electoral system. In May two parties ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new referendum. A record turnout of voters elected a record number of MSPs to that pledge with a clear majority.
This is popular support. As mandated by the electoral system. Yet you want to now negate this result and propose a different bar set by opinion polls. This is somehow more democratic than actual elections.
You want to keep the union? So why are you working so hard to cement the case for independence?
Holyrood MSPs have no authority over the topic so the number is irrelevant.
The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.
So if MSPs are irrelevant why are votes cast for MSPs relevant?
Again. "MSPs are irrelevant" is not an argument to maintain union. It is the opposite.
MSPs are irrelevant in this specific situation because it is outside the scope of their powers.
Votes cast for MSPs are relevant because it is the most recent datapoint on popular support for a second indyref.
marginally over 50% of votes were cast for Indyref supporting parties but not an overwhelming level of support so easy to dismiss.
Portillo in Cornwall (Ch 5) has found a Cornish speaker/singer. The programme tells there are 13,000 speakers of the language. I thought the belief here is that it has died out.
It did, however a group of enthusiast, learned the lagwage and started speaking it and more have joined them.
Portillo in Cornwall (Ch 5) has found a Cornish speaker/singer. The programme tells there are 13,000 speakers of the language. I thought the belief here is that it has died out.
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
He also doesn’t bitch about lockdowns and endlessly accuse the rest of us of being Fascist automatons for accepting them.
Nevertheless, he is still an antivaxxer, a fact which is cravenly ignored by many sycophantic PBers.
If he’s opposed to vaccines, fine. That’s his prerogative. I think he’s wrong, but that’s his lookout.
If Contrarian is opposed to vaccines that is also his(?) prerogative.
However, as Contrarian has spent ages whinging about lockdown complaining it is part of some kind of Illuminati plot to take over the world and is now refusing to take the one action that would bring it to an end apparently for no other reason than that he wants to be proved right, the rest of us are entitled to call him an idiot.
Particularly when the claims/evidence put forward to support this insupportable position are clearly lies.
If you can show where Dura Ace has done either of those, I’ll concede your point, but I’ve never seen it.
I am a bloke to save you the bother.
I think you put your finger on why I am so detested and not dura ace. Its nothing to do with covid vaccines, which I never opposed per se.
Its really my idea that liberty comes before everything. Those who have traded it for 'safety' by agreeing to lockdown and other restrictions have only bought themselves a different kind of danger. A much more threatening danger, potentially, than covid, in my view.
I follow Franklin and think above all his comments echo down the centuries.
Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. And that, in my view, is what they will get.
What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?
I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.
Nothing has changed that opinion.
Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.
What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union
I would be interested in your reply
I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.
Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
So will you refuse indyref2
No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.
To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy
Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.
Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?
He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu
However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence
Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
How many times do we have to do this? 1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it 2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout
We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
As many times as you need to understand
The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be
The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence
It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland
I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.
The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one
No, it’s a totally different thing.
The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis
Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong
I hear you. Don't change the rules of the game. So in Scotland the game is Holyrood and the rules are the electoral system. In May two parties ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new referendum. A record turnout of voters elected a record number of MSPs to that pledge with a clear majority.
This is popular support. As mandated by the electoral system. Yet you want to now negate this result and propose a different bar set by opinion polls. This is somehow more democratic than actual elections.
You want to keep the union? So why are you working so hard to cement the case for independence?
Holyrood MSPs have no authority over the topic so the number is irrelevant.
The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.
So if MSPs are irrelevant why are votes cast for MSPs relevant?
Again. "MSPs are irrelevant" is not an argument to maintain union. It is the opposite.
MSPs are irrelevant in this specific situation because it is outside the scope of their powers.
Votes cast for MSPs are relevant because it is the most recent datapoint on popular support for a second indyref.
marginally over 50% of votes were cast for Indyref supporting parties but not an overwhelming level of support so easy to dismiss.
Ever heard the concept of a majority? You know, like the Brexit referendum?
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
Partly because he has a coherent philosophical position and partly because he isn’t an arse
Sure, that’s the reason PBers justify it with. Yet both posters are antivaxxers, and my point is that only one of them is routinely held up as an example.
Lots of medication is tested on animals, as you know…
I’m well aware of that and I think @Dura_Ace is an idiot for taking the position he does. But he doesn’t ram it down other peoples throats.
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
He also doesn’t bitch about lockdowns and endlessly accuse the rest of us of being Fascist automatons for accepting them.
Nevertheless, he is still an antivaxxer, a fact which is cravenly ignored by many sycophantic PBers.
No, I don't think that he has disputed that vaccines are effective, just that his ethical beliefs prevent him from taking one.
Nor has Contrarian disputed their effectiveness, in my knowledge. There is no difference in their position other than the reason (animals in Dura’s case; government control in Contrarian’s).
"Nearly every malodorous myth about the Great War can be traced back to the literary septic tank that is Lloyd George’s War Memoirs."
An article in the Express that is interesting and amusing?!!??
End Times....
It describes Grey's school, Winchester, as "the thinking boy's Eton"!
I've got Lewis-Stempel's book, Six Weeks – the short and gallant life of the British officer in the First World War. It is mainly about the subalterns, iirc, the Lieutenant Georges in Blackadder terms.
Wykehamists tend to be less posh than Etonians but more intellectual
Didn't Rishi Sunak go there?
He did, he is less posh by background than Boris and Cameron but more intellectual.
Geoffrey Howe and Hugh Gaitskell were also prominent postwar Wykehamist politicians and both intellectuals too.
Winchester is also technically older than Eton, founded in 1382, Eton was only founded in 1440
I was right that Winchester is the older of the two and also generally the more intellectual of the two, 9th on A level and pre U grades to Eton's 13th in the league table of top 100 independent schools
Not a lot in it, these days. Eton often outperforms Winchester on that metric and on Oxbridge places per capita. 40 years ago Eton was markedly unselective, hence the joke "Slough comp.", with only the truly thick being relegated to Stowe.
SOMEBODY MAKE IT STOP
Form a political party with Kinabalu, put a manifesto together and off you go. I'm highly sympathetic to your position btw, just a sworn opponent of wrongness on the internet.
This should be off-the-shelf, no need for bespoke - Labour!
I'll be honest the news that natural immunity is superior to vaccination makes me less angry with @contrarian and the other antivaxxers. I mean they're mugging themselves off but I don't think herd immunity is overly affected by his and his ilks actions
Worth noting that @Dura_Ace is also an antivaxxer yet gets a fraction of the opprobrium reserved from Contrarian
I don't think he's ever said that people in general should not get the vaccine, just that he won't because of animal rights concerns.
He also doesn’t bitch about lockdowns and endlessly accuse the rest of us of being Fascist automatons for accepting them.
Nevertheless, he is still an antivaxxer, a fact which is cravenly ignored by many sycophantic PBers.
If he’s opposed to vaccines, fine. That’s his prerogative. I think he’s wrong, but that’s his lookout.
If Contrarian is opposed to vaccines that is also his(?) prerogative.
However, as Contrarian has spent ages whinging about lockdown complaining it is part of some kind of Illuminati plot to take over the world and is now refusing to take the one action that would bring it to an end apparently for no other reason than that he wants to be proved right, the rest of us are entitled to call him an idiot.
Particularly when the claims/evidence put forward to support this insupportable position are clearly lies.
If you can show where Dura Ace has done either of those, I’ll concede your point, but I’ve never seen it.
I am a bloke to save you the bother.
I think you put your finger on why I am so detested and not dura ace. Its nothing to do with covid vaccines, which I never opposed per se.
Its really my idea that liberty comes before everything. Those who have traded it for 'safety' by agreeing to lockdown and other restrictions have only bought themselves a different kind of danger. A much more threatening danger, potentially, than covid, in my view.
I follow Franklin and think above all his comments echo down the centuries.
Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. And that, in my view, is what they will get.
Thank you for the clarification on gender. Noted.
The point is, you may think you believe liberty comes before everything, but you are wrong. As you have repeatedly demonstrated. If you believed that, you’d take the vaccine so we could have it back.
But actually, I think the reason you’re so incredibly unpopular is because you are so thoroughly unpleasant to everyone. Hyufd is stubborn and believes lots of stupid things, but while we find him exasperating and even infuriating I don’t think anyone hates him.
US weapons left in Afghanistan reportedly being shipped to Iran.
Just a few days ago on PB, we were wondering why the Americans weren't destroying their weapons instead of allowing them to fall into the hands of the enemy.
What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?
I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.
Nothing has changed that opinion.
Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.
What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union
I would be interested in your reply
I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.
Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
So will you refuse indyref2
No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.
To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy
Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.
Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?
He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu
However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence
Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
How many times do we have to do this? 1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it 2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout
We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
As many times as you need to understand
The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be
The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence
It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland
I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.
The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one
No, it’s a totally different thing.
The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis
Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong
I hear you. Don't change the rules of the game. So in Scotland the game is Holyrood and the rules are the electoral system. In May two parties ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new referendum. A record turnout of voters elected a record number of MSPs to that pledge with a clear majority.
This is popular support. As mandated by the electoral system. Yet you want to now negate this result and propose a different bar set by opinion polls. This is somehow more democratic than actual elections.
You want to keep the union? So why are you working so hard to cement the case for independence?
Holyrood MSPs have no authority over the topic so the number is irrelevant.
The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.
So if MSPs are irrelevant why are votes cast for MSPs relevant?
Again. "MSPs are irrelevant" is not an argument to maintain union. It is the opposite.
MSPs are irrelevant in this specific situation because it is outside the scope of their powers.
Votes cast for MSPs are relevant because it is the most recent datapoint on popular support for a second indyref.
marginally over 50% of votes were cast for Indyref supporting parties but not an overwhelming level of support so easy to dismiss.
Ever heard the concept of a majority? You know, like the Brexit referendum?
Sure.
But this wasn’t a vote on the topic.
This is a political argument: “give us a second vote now because the people of Scotland are demanding it!”
50.1% is a lot less impressive than 70% or 60% support for a second referendum. So Boris can just say no.
US weapons left in Afghanistan reportedly being shipped to Iran.
For a Republican, I am actually more offended by the Queen's photograph being left to be defaced by the Taliban than I expected.
I have to admit that the US Military do seem to lack imagination in so much as they didn't have the foresight in the hours before the Taliban took Kabul to fly their Black Hawks over the border to friendly Pakistan. The Humvees, yes, more of a problem, but surely they could have been easily torched, like it would seem we did with the photograph of the Queen.
I wonder what we left there at great expense to the taxpayer? A water cannon and a garden bridge perhaps.
Don't worry everyone. The Global Financial Crisis was Labour trashing the finances National debt of 65% was crippling and we almost went bankrupt National debt of 100% and rising is affordable
Perhaps some consistency may help PB Tories going foreard
National debt wasn't the issue in 2010. The deficit was the issue in 2010.
Hypothetically it would be much better to a national debt of 110% with a structural 1% surplus than a national debt of 70% with a structural 10% deficit.
I can see through your smoke and mirrors.
No smokes and mirrors. The issue in 2010 was always (by those who know what they're talking about) the deficit.
Only an idiot who didn't understand economics ever said debt in 2010.
Surely the analogy used by Osborne about "paying off the nation's credit card" was exclusively refencing the debt.
Was he wrong, or are you rewriting the narrative?
No, debt was never going to be repaid. The credit card is the deficit.
Credit cards are good for current expenditure so long as you pay them off in full each month. That is having no deficit. Credit cards are ruinous if you can't repay leading to escalating debt, charges and ultimately penury.
He never said paying off the nation's mortgage, student loan and other long term debts. That's debt.
Yes, you have indeed changed the narrative.
No I've not. Closing the deficit is about paying off the current expenditure (credit card).
Its not paying off the mortage.
That you can't tell the difference between short-term unaffordable debts like credit card/payday loans/deficit and long-term structural ones like mortgages/student loans/national debt says more about your ignorance than it does me or Osborne.
Comments
It's like the difference between someone saying "I'm going to eat another cookie and I don't care if I gain weight" and someone else saying "the cookie diet makes people lose weight, I ready about in online, why are you trying to get kids to eat vegetables?"
But, technically, they only need the support of a majority of members of the House of Commons
The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.
The fact is the BoE and the Treasury knows any increase in interest rates by a substantial amount is going to cause carnage for consumers who have mortgages (and often are on interest only payments). The only way you can get round this is to have sufficient wage inflation whereby consumers’ income can support an increase in the payments. Even then, you would need several years of such wage inflation .
Credit cards are good for current expenditure so long as you pay them off in full each month. That is having no deficit.
Credit cards are ruinous if you can't repay leading to escalating debt, charges and ultimately penury.
He never said paying off the nation's mortgage, student loan and other long term debts. That's debt.
From that perspective dragging feet and ignoring the will of the scottish parliament (and through them the voters who put them them) in the hopes that something will come up and support will drop may well not work, it may well outrage, but the appeal to Boris of kicking the can down the road with a potential risk it makes things worse is obvious against the potential risk that there is failure now.
But when I look at Scotland’s post back to school case data, the noises from Israel of waning vaccine immunity, and the bizarre hesitation of the JCVI in recommending boosters, are we not headed for a brick wall in a pretty short period of time?
I just don't think that waning immunity will have a lot to do with it. More to do with breakthrough cases and high exposure rates, due to a lot of circulating virus.
Again. "MSPs are irrelevant" is not an argument to maintain union. It is the opposite.
Give in to the Nationalists and give them an indyref2 before a generation is up and even if No narrowly wins again the Nationalists will be back for indyref3, indyref4, indyref5 etc until they get the result they want.
If the UK government gives in to the Nationalists about turn on their insistence in 2014 it was a once in a generation vote there is nothing to stop the Nationalists demanding a referendum every year if they want one.
No Parliament can bind its successors so if Westminster gives into the Nationalists now there is nothing to stop the Nationalists believing a future Parliament will give into them and have an indyref when they want one.
It is not even as if the Scottish people want one now either, the polling is clear they do not want one until at least 2026, so this UK Tory government must stick to its guns and until the next UK general election say a firm 'NO!!'
It's been my fear since the vaccination programme began - we will get everyone (more or less) vaccinated and then sit back thinking we've won and the job's done just as winter approaches.
Lots of medication is tested on animals, as you know…
Scoop with @helenwarrell @MureDickie https://on.ft.com/3DCdrOK
I don't honestly want a run in with the coronavirus and while I think I would be all right I'm far from certain. I accept there may be a scientific argument for promoting immunity via infection but for some that is going to be a very difficult proposition. I thought we had ordered more than enough doses for a general booster vaccination programme so I fail to see the reticence here.
I suspect as the vaccines improve the duration of protection will also be extended so we can go a year between booster vaccinations and it becomes like the current influenza vaccination.
https://on.ft.com/3DCdrOK
In fact legally Westminster could scrap Holyrood tomorrow, repeal the Scotland Act and impose direct rule as was the the case before 1999, much as Madrid did over Catalonia temporarily if Nationalists become too bolshy and go beyond their remit to try and break up the Union without UK government agreement.
However most probably just ignoring the SNP will be fine, legally there is nothing they can do to end the Union if Westminster does not agree
If s/he don’t want vaccines, that’s his/her choice, but there are consequences to that that s/he simply won’t consider or even acknowledge.
It doesn’t help s/he’s a nasty, dishonest, abusive bully who has always come with insults and false information to try and bolster his impossible position. Dura Ace can be pretty fiery but is also full of useful information and some shrewd insights on military matters.
I just think that declarations of victory and normality are premature. Certainly while our staff are press-ganged to an under strength ICU things are not over.
The tragedy is, that seems to be the narrative the voters have swallowed as well as the PB faithful.
https://twitter.com/aliostad/status/1433152368414269443?s=21
US weapons left in Afghanistan reportedly being shipped to Iran.
You're happy to impose rules on a different country, yet you claimed today that rules applying to the Conservative Party and its members were not applicable to Scotland because Scotland.
Do the Little Englanders who vote for BoZo really care if the subs are in Scotland?
If Contrarian is opposed to vaccines that is also his(?) prerogative.
However, as Contrarian has spent ages whinging about lockdown complaining it is part of some kind of Illuminati plot to take over the world and is now refusing to take the one action that would bring it to an end apparently for no other reason than that he wants to be proved right, the rest of us are entitled to call him an idiot.
Particularly when the claims/evidence put forward to support this insupportable position are clearly lies.
If you can show where Dura Ace has done either of those, I’ll concede your point, but I’ve never seen it.
In any case we should scrap them as obsolete cold War relics.
What is your problem with that?
It’s not that Contrarian is opposed to vaccines that’s the problem, it’s the false information and the determination to have neither vaccines or lockdown that’s the issue, coupled with the sheer bile he pours over other posters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th5AObhdJfs
They are equally ludicrous positions in my view.
From the UK's point of view, also, it is hopelessly isolated inland. Not even an airfield. Gib and the Cyprus bases are accessible from air and sea. Not those ones. Road and sea blockades are absurdly easy. And I can't imagine MoD or the RN being happy.
That took two minutes scrolling through to find.
There are many more.
Rob Smithson has been walloping contrarian on these bogus stats.
It is interesting that the Taliban seem to have much better relations with Iran than previously. A common enemy in ISIS and Salafism maybe?
Votes cast for MSPs are relevant because it is the most recent datapoint on popular support for a second indyref.
marginally over 50% of votes were cast for Indyref supporting parties but not an overwhelming level of support so easy to dismiss.
I think you put your finger on why I am so detested and not dura ace. Its nothing to do with covid vaccines, which I never opposed per se.
Its really my idea that liberty comes before everything. Those who have traded it for 'safety' by agreeing to lockdown and other restrictions have only bought themselves a different kind of danger. A much more threatening danger, potentially, than covid, in my view.
I follow Franklin and think above all his comments echo down the centuries.
Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. And that, in my view, is what they will get.
In that very post he says that the numbers are identical in highly vaxxed and low vaxxed states.
Which is bollocks.
His words are the equivalent of Corbyn saying ‘I am not an antisemite.’ He is saying it to deflect attention from his actual message.
My goodness.
The point is, you may think you believe liberty comes before everything, but you are wrong. As you have repeatedly demonstrated. If you believed that, you’d take the vaccine so we could have it back.
But actually, I think the reason you’re so incredibly unpopular is because you are so thoroughly unpleasant to everyone. Hyufd is stubborn and believes lots of stupid things, but while we find him exasperating and even infuriating I don’t think anyone hates him.
And with that, good night.
NEW THREAD
But this wasn’t a vote on the topic.
This is a political argument: “give us a second vote now because the people of Scotland are demanding it!”
50.1% is a lot less impressive than 70% or 60% support for a second referendum. So Boris can just say no.
I have to admit that the US Military do seem to lack imagination in so much as they didn't have the foresight in the hours before the Taliban took Kabul to fly their Black Hawks over the border to friendly Pakistan. The Humvees, yes, more of a problem, but surely they could have been easily torched, like it would seem we did with the photograph of the Queen.
I wonder what we left there at great expense to the taxpayer? A water cannon and a garden bridge perhaps.
https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1433031883978383364?s=20
Its not paying off the mortage.
That you can't tell the difference between short-term unaffordable debts like credit card/payday loans/deficit and long-term structural ones like mortgages/student loans/national debt says more about your ignorance than it does me or Osborne.