I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post, David.
I'd go slightly more emotional than you: we all live on the same island and have a huge amount in common. Weather, landscapes, language (by and large), humour, families, history, heritage, and common institutions, like the monarchy, currency, NHS, BBC and armed forces.
I think it would be a tragedy to split. But, it's a battle I know is currently being lost.
I don't think it will be a huge emotional event. We will continue to share an island and a language, the queen would remain head of state initially at least, I imagine there would be reciprocal access to the NHS, there would be a common travel area like with Ireland. It's just obvious now that Scotland is on a different political trajectory. Brexit is one notable example but far from the only one. I don't think the Union is sustainable anymore. Even as someone with roots in both England and Scotland I won't mourn it.
Polling seems to suggest that values in Scotland and England are pretty similar. The puzzle is why the two countries vote so differently, especially when they never used to.
To be fair they have been voting quite differently for the whole of my lifetime, it's not that new a development. I agree that on fundamental values they are quite similar. But that's true of most Western European countries. Most of what we argue about on PB is the narcissism of small differences.
Scotland got the government it voted for in 1997, 2001 and 2005. It didn't want a Labour government in 2015, 2017 or 2019, so got that too!
Aside from 2015 (I can't remember where you were in your on/off affair with the Labour party at that moment) , that pretty much reflects your political wants, doesn't it? 2017 and 2019 have gone particularly well!
I was being tongue in cheek! I think 2017 is the closest I have got to a GE result I wanted since 2005. Last year, I literally could not win in any way at all.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
This is a lot of verbiage to dress up your own narrow nationalism.
Never interrupt a nationalist in the middle of them defining themself as a patriot. It makes them angry and even more convinced of their noble patriotism.
Sweden has had a tremendous last 14 days in Covid deaths. Unless they are about to do some massive revisions we are looking at sub 20 (maybe even sub 15) Covid deaths a day once the data lag has been accounted for.
Yeh, but no, but yeh, but no. Sweden is a disaster.
"President Donald Trump is now an underdog to win a second term, and Republicans’ Senate majority is in serious danger of being swept out with him, according to the latest edition of POLITICO’s Election Forecast."
This has been public knowledge since Saturday since the government changed the way it presents the figures by directing you to the website. It surprises me the media hadn't already picked up on it as it's on the same page as the headline figures. It's also a perfectly reasonable explanation that's given on the website. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
But is that for security reasons or competition reasons?
On 4G and 5G hardware and software the US is generally way behind Huawei. There are no US companies that come close to offering the breadth and quality of what Huawei has. It's a total failure of strategic planning and the free market. Amazingly, even Europe - in the shape of Nokia and Ericsson - is ahead of the Americans.
So you think it is competition and giving their manufacturers a chance to catch up? That would be my suspicion, even if its given a national security cloak (which in the medium term may well be justified, by the way).
I think it's more that the US does not really know what it wants except it does not want Huawei. There is no domestic company that has a chance to catch up as none is structured in that way. Huawei has a unique blend of top technology and supply capacity - no American company gets close. The quickest route to changing that is a US buy-out of either Nokia or Ericsson - but that is much easier said than done.
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
But is that for security reasons or competition reasons?
On 4G and 5G hardware and software the US is generally way behind Huawei. There are no US companies that come close to offering the breadth and quality of what Huawei has. It's a total failure of strategic planning and the free market. Amazingly, even Europe - in the shape of Nokia and Ericsson - is ahead of the Americans.
So you think it is competition and giving their manufacturers a chance to catch up? That would be my suspicion, even if its given a national security cloak (which in the medium term may well be justified, by the way).
Ericsson (and Nokia to a less extent) are really American companies now...
The issue is that Huawei are far cheaper (and were quicker to get to market) than the other options...
I don't think you can describe either Ericsson or Nokia as US companies.
I think Sturgeon did well in the early days of the Covid crisis but the position in Scotland is now a joke. Yesterday I went to Tesco's, sans mask as usual. About 80% of people were the same. This is perfectly legal and apparently safe, at least until the 10th when it becomes illegal. Quite, quite bizarre.
I cannot go to the pub in Scotland or a restaurant or have my hair cut until the 15th. Why not? Well, just because. It's not because we have a higher infection rate, in fact we seem to have a lower R rate. It's just to be different.
At the moment I can go to a shop which has an external door but not to shops in shopping centres.
I won't even try to describe the rules about how many households I am allowed to have in or visit, whether it is inside or outside, whether I have to stay 2m apart or not because everyone has long since lost interest and does their own thing.
I am genuinely unclear why we still have the 2m rule in Scotland and whether there are any plans to change this to the 1m+ Its also completely ignored once you are in supermarkets or on the street but it must be a nightmare for pubs and restaurants who are contemplating opening.
I live in hope that this plain incompetence, stupidity and economic vandalism will start to be reflected in the polling. We shall see.
Unfortunately, David, I don't see how. As I explained yesterday and was amply demonstrated by our nats, any criticism of Nicola is painted as being anti-Scotland. It doesn't matter that she's been absolutely crap the compliant media and sycophants will equate criticism of Nicola to criticism of Scotland and shut down the conversation.
I know you're a unionist to the core, but I think Scotland won't have any semblance of good governance until it becomes independent. People like Malc who would never consider the SNP because of their terrible governance and economic record have no other place to go which keeps them in power. For 40% of Scotland independence is the overriding policy of the day, which means the SNP will have their hands on the levers of power indefinitely. Even if there is a second referendum which is lost, there won't be any swingback to unionist parties. The core 40% will never give up now that they see it as inevitable.
There's certainly no chance of good governance as part of this dysfunctional, oligarchical, undemocratic union.
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
But is that for security reasons or competition reasons?
On 4G and 5G hardware and software the US is generally way behind Huawei. There are no US companies that come close to offering the breadth and quality of what Huawei has. It's a total failure of strategic planning and the free market. Amazingly, even Europe - in the shape of Nokia and Ericsson - is ahead of the Americans.
So you think it is competition and giving their manufacturers a chance to catch up? That would be my suspicion, even if its given a national security cloak (which in the medium term may well be justified, by the way).
Ericsson (and Nokia to a less extent) are really American companies now...
The issue is that Huawei are far cheaper (and were quicker to get to market) than the other options...
I don't think you can describe either Ericsson or Nokia as US companies.
Having worked with senior management of both over the past few years they are far less European than they used to be.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
Assuming a probability of one in 7000 then the expected value for the first infected is 7000. That does not mean the chances of it being EXACTLY 7000 is large, infact it is 1.5*10^-5.
The probability of a true positive in the first 400 is 0.0057.
No it's not. That's flawed.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
Maths
I get:
1% chance after 70 2% chance after 141 5% chance after 359 10% chance after 737 20% chance after 1,562 30% chance after 2,497 40% chance after 3,576 50% chance after 4,852 64% chance after 7,000
With America banning the use of US designed chips it's highly possible that the replacement chips might have issues that weren't currently the case.
I can see why GCHQ have decided that an acceptable risk is suddenly unacceptable now we are no longer talking about Chinese hardware surrounding US designed chips and are now looking at Chinese hardware surrouding Chinese designed chips.
How you say that without permanently annoying China is an impossible task - especially when one of our mobile networks is owned by a Chinese / Hong Kong Company.
It's not even a question of having to buy hardware that uses Chinese components — there's nothing in principle wrong about that as HiSilicon is a capable company — the Americans are trying to stop Huawei even making chips, by cutting off access to tools and manufacturing. America wants Huawei out of the business altogether, not just free of US parts.
But is that for security reasons or competition reasons?
On 4G and 5G hardware and software the US is generally way behind Huawei. There are no US companies that come close to offering the breadth and quality of what Huawei has. It's a total failure of strategic planning and the free market. Amazingly, even Europe - in the shape of Nokia and Ericsson - is ahead of the Americans.
So you think it is competition and giving their manufacturers a chance to catch up? That would be my suspicion, even if its given a national security cloak (which in the medium term may well be justified, by the way).
Ericsson (and Nokia to a less extent) are really American companies now...
The issue is that Huawei are far cheaper (and were quicker to get to market) than the other options...
I don't think you can describe either Ericsson or Nokia as US companies.
Having worked with senior management of both over the past few years they are far less European than they used to be.
A lot of Ericsson is ex-Nortel.
I work with Ericsson on a frequent basis. They are one of our biggest sponsors. All the big decisions are made in Sweden - at least in my part of the business (IP and R&D).
This has been public knowledge since Saturday since the government changed the way it presents the figures by directing you to the website. It surprises me the media hadn't already picked up on it as it's on the same page as the headline figures. It's also a perfectly reasonable explanation that's given on the website. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public
So it's not a conspiracy or incompetence? It's simply that a single headline figure no longer captures what is happening when some people are having repeat tests, and others routine tests.
Boris’s band of bland boy Brexiteers bluff and bluster their way through every briefing without any descriptive help from me. With nothing else to do now with my afternoons, I’ve been keeping count of the number of times they use the phrases ‘I get that’, ‘Incredibly (insert your own adjective)’, ‘World class’, ‘As I said’, and ‘Going forward’. Hyperbole can be as grave a sin as alliteration, so let’s just say the count’s gone through the roof. Brexit’s going to be fun — speaking of going forward — watching those who couldn’t source a pair of rubber gloves trying to find a country to trade with.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
Maths
So you mean 50% chance is at 4852, not the same thing at all. I can do maths too!
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
Assuming a probability of one in 7000 then the expected value for the first infected is 7000. That does not mean the chances of it being EXACTLY 7000 is large, infact it is 1.5*10^-5.
The probability of a true positive in the first 400 is 0.0057.
No it's not. That's flawed.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
I would say if you roll a dice 6 times the chance of rolling at least one 6 is approx 2/3 (66%).
This has been public knowledge since Saturday since the government changed the way it presents the figures by directing you to the website. It surprises me the media hadn't already picked up on it as it's on the same page as the headline figures. It's also a perfectly reasonable explanation that's given on the website. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public
So it's not a conspiracy or incompetence? It's simply that a single headline figure no longer captures what is happening when some people are having repeat tests, and others routine tests.
Yep, but the short soundbites you see from political journalists on Twitter would have you believe it's the new omnishambles. The government needs to stop tooting it's own horn with these ideas though. It's setting itself up for a fail each time it does. Taking the app as an example, it turned out to be a bit of a bust and test and trace seems to be working relatively well, but the government generated hype over the app which made the U turn look ever more embarrassing. It's the same with this.
If SLAB could actually find a decent leader that would help.
You’ve put your finger on it. The key problem for all the Unionist parties is lack of talent. All three of them have been so negative for so long that they have crippled recruitment. SLab haven’t had a decent intake since the 1980s, with all the good ones since then having slowly drifted off.
Constantly thundering on about how crap Scotland is is designed to discourage young people.
Garden Walker above says that nobody has made a case for the Union for a long time. There are two reasons for this:
1. there is no case to be made 2. even if there were, there is no authoritative, respected voice to deliver it to the key floating voters
Unionists focus far too much on their core voters. That is a hopeless strategy designed to fail. They must reach out to Middle Scotland. Politicians like Johnson, Carlaw, Leonard and Rennie are never going to achieve that. They just wouldn’t know where to start.
54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at GE19 when you combine the vote for Scottish Tories, Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs.
So technically they are already winning middle Scotland
There is nothing I enjoy more than a complacent Unionist.
Oh come on, that's a bit obsessive even for you. A romantic evening with your loved one, a decent bottle of wine, a nice steak, even (for the really aspirational) Scotland winning a football match against a country with a bigger population than its own. The list is almost endless.
Has @BubbaWallace apologized to all of those great NASCAR drivers & officials who came to his aid, stood by his side, & were willing to sacrifice everything for him, only to find out that the whole thing was just another HOAX? That & Flag decision has caused lowest ratings EVER!
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
Assuming a probability of one in 7000 then the expected value for the first infected is 7000. That does not mean the chances of it being EXACTLY 7000 is large, infact it is 1.5*10^-5.
The probability of a true positive in the first 400 is 0.0057.
No it's not. That's flawed.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
I would say if you roll a dice 6 times the chance of rolling at least one 6 is approx 2/3 (66%).
This has been public knowledge since Saturday since the government changed the way it presents the figures by directing you to the website. It surprises me the media hadn't already picked up on it as it's on the same page as the headline figures. It's also a perfectly reasonable explanation that's given on the website. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public
So it's not a conspiracy or incompetence? It's simply that a single headline figure no longer captures what is happening when some people are having repeat tests, and others routine tests.
Yep, but the short soundbites you see from political journalists on Twitter would have you believe it's the new omnishambles. The government needs to stop tooting it's own horn with these ideas though. It's setting itself up for a fail each time it does. Taking the app as an example, it turned out to be a bit of a bust and test and trace seems to be working relatively well, but the government generated hype over the app which made the U turn look ever more embarrassing. It's the same with this.
The German app has reached 15 million downloads — which is not the same as in use and working — and has had 300 infections reported so far. Which is nowhere near the level that is needed to be really effective, and it is unlikely to reach that level unless it is made mandatory.
This has been public knowledge since Saturday since the government changed the way it presents the figures by directing you to the website. It surprises me the media hadn't already picked up on it as it's on the same page as the headline figures. It's also a perfectly reasonable explanation that's given on the website. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public
So it's not a conspiracy or incompetence? It's simply that a single headline figure no longer captures what is happening when some people are having repeat tests, and others routine tests.
Yep, but the short soundbites you see from political journalists on Twitter would have you believe it's the new omnishambles. The government needs to stop tooting it's own horn with these ideas though. It's setting itself up for a fail each time it does. Taking the app as an example, it turned out to be a bit of a bust and test and trace seems to be working relatively well, but the government generated hype over the app which made the U turn look ever more embarrassing. It's the same with this.
The German app has reached 15 million downloads — which is not the same as in use and working — and has had 300 infections reported so far. Which is nowhere near the level that is needed to be really effective, and it is unlikely to reach that level unless it is made mandatory.
Singapore- a pretty digitally switched on sort of place couldn’t get theirs to get widespread distribution either.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post, David.
I'd go slightly more emotional than you: we all live on the same island and have a huge amount in common. Weather, landscapes, language (by and large), humour, families, history, heritage, and common institutions, like the monarchy, currency, NHS, BBC and armed forces.
I think it would be a tragedy to split. But, it's a battle I know is currently being lost.
I don't think it will be a huge emotional event. We will continue to share an island and a language, the queen would remain head of state initially at least, I imagine there would be reciprocal access to the NHS, there would be a common travel area like with Ireland. It's just obvious now that Scotland is on a different political trajectory. Brexit is one notable example but far from the only one. I don't think the Union is sustainable anymore. Even as someone with roots in both England and Scotland I won't mourn it.
Polling seems to suggest that values in Scotland and England are pretty similar. The puzzle is why the two countries vote so differently, especially when they never used to.
Ironically they can even agree on Brexit now, 55% of Scots, and at least 50% or more of every English region think staying in the single market would be an acceptable outcome. On leaving the EU with no deal 49% of voters across the UK think that would be unacceptable and just 38% acceptable and in Scotland 61% think that would be unacceptable.
It was only on staying in the EU they disagreed, over 50% of Scots but less than 50% of English voters in every region bar London opposed that.
Now Boris has delivered Brexit it is possible if Starmer became PM after the next general election and aligned the UK back with the single market and gave them devomax Scottish resentment would dissipate
No, that genie is out of the bottle, and isn't going back inside.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
Assuming a probability of one in 7000 then the expected value for the first infected is 7000. That does not mean the chances of it being EXACTLY 7000 is large, infact it is 1.5*10^-5.
The probability of a true positive in the first 400 is 0.0057.
No it's not. That's flawed.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
I would say if you roll a dice 6 times the chance of rolling at least one 6 is approx 2/3 (66%).
This has been public knowledge since Saturday since the government changed the way it presents the figures by directing you to the website. It surprises me the media hadn't already picked up on it as it's on the same page as the headline figures. It's also a perfectly reasonable explanation that's given on the website. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public
So it's not a conspiracy or incompetence? It's simply that a single headline figure no longer captures what is happening when some people are having repeat tests, and others routine tests.
Yep, but the short soundbites you see from political journalists on Twitter would have you believe it's the new omnishambles. The government needs to stop tooting it's own horn with these ideas though. It's setting itself up for a fail each time it does. Taking the app as an example, it turned out to be a bit of a bust and test and trace seems to be working relatively well, but the government generated hype over the app which made the U turn look ever more embarrassing. It's the same with this.
The German app has reached 15 million downloads — which is not the same as in use and working — and has had 300 infections reported so far. Which is nowhere near the level that is needed to be really effective, and it is unlikely to reach that level unless it is made mandatory.
Singapore- a pretty digitally switched on sort of place couldn’t get theirs to get widespread distribution either.
Has @BubbaWallace apologized to all of those great NASCAR drivers & officials who came to his aid, stood by his side, & were willing to sacrifice everything for him, only to find out that the whole thing was just another HOAX? That & Flag decision has caused lowest ratings EVER!
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
I disagree for four reasons.
1: We're not protected by water, people travel across borders by air not boat. 2: Social distancing matters and we have one of the least distanced nations in the world. We have one of the highest population densities in the world. 3: This epidemic is far from over. 4: Many other nations figures are not honest or accurate - either by design or incompetence. Ours have been trying to be at least.
There are various reasons for us having the worst outcome in the world. But good luck if you wish to leave "Johnson government response" off the list.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
The rest of us could enjoy a shoot out between the Scottish Nationalist Front and the Front for Scottish Nationalism and await their provisional factions with bated breath.
This has been public knowledge since Saturday since the government changed the way it presents the figures by directing you to the website. It surprises me the media hadn't already picked up on it as it's on the same page as the headline figures. It's also a perfectly reasonable explanation that's given on the website. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public
So it's not a conspiracy or incompetence? It's simply that a single headline figure no longer captures what is happening when some people are having repeat tests, and others routine tests.
Yep, but the short soundbites you see from political journalists on Twitter would have you believe it's the new omnishambles. The government needs to stop tooting it's own horn with these ideas though. It's setting itself up for a fail each time it does. Taking the app as an example, it turned out to be a bit of a bust and test and trace seems to be working relatively well, but the government generated hype over the app which made the U turn look ever more embarrassing. It's the same with this.
The German app has reached 15 million downloads — which is not the same as in use and working — and has had 300 infections reported so far. Which is nowhere near the level that is needed to be really effective, and it is unlikely to reach that level unless it is made mandatory.
Singapore- a pretty digitally switched on sort of place couldn’t get theirs to get widespread distribution either.
I honestly thought that Germany might be doing well, but when I went looking for the figures it looks like adoption has slowed right down. That seems to be the case in most places that have tried apps, they do not reach critical mass.
Sweden has had a tremendous last 14 days in Covid deaths. Unless they are about to do some massive revisions we are looking at sub 20 (maybe even sub 15) Covid deaths a day once the data lag has been accounted for.
Yeh, but no, but yeh, but no. Sweden is a disaster.
Has @BubbaWallace apologized to all of those great NASCAR drivers & officials who came to his aid, stood by his side, & were willing to sacrifice everything for him, only to find out that the whole thing was just another HOAX? That & Flag decision has caused lowest ratings EVER!
What I read on that story is that it wasn't the driver who reported it, it was someone else working there, so it wasn't his fault. Funny that those handles had been around for years and no one had batted an eyelid.
... is because Starmer is a politician seeking partisan advantage. That's life, that's politics. Doesn't mean Starmer was calling for anything different at the time, would have done anything different, but he can be a partisan hack seeking partisan advantage with hindsight.
Such is life as an opposition leader.
He wasn't opposition leader at the time.
No but he was a politician and speaking to the media regularly as he was taking part in the leadership contest. He had plenty of opportunity to call for a lockdown if he'd wanted to do so.
It would have been wrong for him to do so, even if he thought he was right. It was a time for people to be united behind the govt and the govt to follow the scientists.
Absolutely it was. And hindsight doesn't change that.
But that won't stop Starmer from pretending now he would have done otherwise even though he never said anything at the time and he would have followed the scientists too.
Same argument with the Iraq War. The government has more information than the opposition and therefore the opposition really has no choice, in such matters - ie in rare crises - other than to follow the government.
Agreed. But that doesn't stop the opposition from being entitled to score partisan points afterwards.
But people shouldn't pretend that is anything other than partisan politics. We all know it is.
It is a little bit more than that. One of the more disappointing aspects of the government’s performance is their apparent incapacity to admit they might have made mistakes in their response. The most blatant example of that is, of course, care homes - where for a couple of crucial weeks it was deliberate government policy to strongly encourage the discharge of non critical infected patients from hospitals.
That also applies, though, to their policies on major events just before the lockdown, and the timing if the lockdown itself.
And masks, where they were ludicrously slow to recognise their effectiveness - and are still failing sufficiently to encourage their use and ensure their availability.
Off topic - F1. Ferrari need to fire Vettel. "This car is undriveable" when Charles put it on the podium is a comment of a man who is *done*. Prost him, pay McLaren £lots to release Sainz. Then McLaren can bring in Alonso to be the experienced father figure for Lando Norris.
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
I disagree for four reasons.
1: We're not protected by water, people travel across borders by air not boat. 2: Social distancing matters and we have one of the least distanced nations in the world. We have one of the highest population densities in the world. 3: This epidemic is far from over. 4: Many other nations figures are not honest or accurate - either by design or incompetence. Ours have been trying to be at least.
There are various reasons for us having the worst outcome in the world. But good luck if you wish to leave "Johnson government response" off the list.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
Not being posted to sign some new light onto things - each side will interpret as they wish. It is more to flag why Biden might hesitate about having Rice as his VP pick *
* I've put some money on Rice as a covering bet as she has a lot of pluses but this is the issue that worries me about putting more
What I read on that story is that it wasn't the driver who reported it, it was someone else working there, so it wasn't his fault. Funny that those handles had been around for years and no one had batted an eyelid.
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
I disagree for four reasons.
1: We're not protected by water, people travel across borders by air not boat. 2: Social distancing matters and we have one of the least distanced nations in the world. We have one of the highest population densities in the world. 3: This epidemic is far from over. 4: Many other nations figures are not honest or accurate - either by design or incompetence. Ours have been trying to be at least.
There are various reasons for us having the worst outcome in the world. But good luck if you wish to leave "Johnson government response" off the list.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
And sorry to hit you with a cliche but "advisors advise, ministers decide".
So when they ignore advice to do something you agree with then they are taking responsibility and when they ignore it to do something you disagree with they are doing some great crime in your eyes.
Rice dropping again. Now at 4.7. Harris edging up.
Thanks. Duckworth is in a couple of points too and has now replaced Demings as third best on Betfair. 2.1 Harris 5.4 Rice 10 Duckworth 11 Demings
Anyone quick and who does not value their account -- there is an arb on Duckworth who you can back at 12/1 with Shadsy and lay at 11.5 (ie 10.5/1) on Betfair.
Whatever else can be said about Trump, he’s never wavered in his constant dedication to Make America Hate Again.
Terrible, it really is. He clearly thinks WH2020 will be a silent majority election and that the silent majority are seasoned racists. Fortunately he only has the 1st bit right. It WILL be a silent majority election - but the silent majority have had enough of Donald Trump.
Ah, really? I had read it was found in several, and the had been there for a while.
The review found it was only in the one garage not several, though it had been there for a while it was still quite clearly a noose. No other garage had a noose.
Ah, really? I had read it was found in several, and the had been there for a while.
The review found it was only in the one garage not several, though it had been there for a while it was still quite clearly a noose. No other garage had a noose.
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
I disagree for four reasons.
1: We're not protected by water, people travel across borders by air not boat. 2: Social distancing matters and we have one of the least distanced nations in the world. We have one of the highest population densities in the world. 3: This epidemic is far from over. 4: Many other nations figures are not honest or accurate - either by design or incompetence. Ours have been trying to be at least.
There are various reasons for us having the worst outcome in the world. But good luck if you wish to leave "Johnson government response" off the list.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
And sorry to hit you with a cliche but "advisors advise, ministers decide".
So when they ignore advice to do something you agree with then they are taking responsibility and when they ignore it to do something you disagree with they are doing some great crime in your eyes.
Yes, they can't win but at the end of the day the Chief Medical Officer isn't going to be seeking reelection in 2024 and it is the govt who is accountable.
As I noted earlier, my criticism is that from the outset Boris outsourced government to Chris Witty. He did it in order to provide a firebreak between the govt's actions and the outcomes. But that's not how it works.
On the face of it, I am not sure I agree with the censure here. A piece of material that suggests that Jewish people are the puppeteers of the world would be disgustingly racist and deserve to be condemned. A piece of material suggesting a real person is puppeteering a situation, based on real evidence pointing to that behaviour (of which I would suggest in Desmond's case there is certainly enough to justify satire) - I am not sure this can be out of bounds, as it effectively shields would-be wrong-doers of a particular culture from negative responses to their actions. To my mind, this is a (lesser) case of the same phenomenon of police not responding to Muslim grooming gangs, for reasons of racial and cultural sensitivity. Likely to backfire.
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
I disagree for four reasons.
1: We're not protected by water, people travel across borders by air not boat. 2: Social distancing matters and we have one of the least distanced nations in the world. We have one of the highest population densities in the world. 3: This epidemic is far from over. 4: Many other nations figures are not honest or accurate - either by design or incompetence. Ours have been trying to be at least.
There are various reasons for us having the worst outcome in the world. But good luck if you wish to leave "Johnson government response" off the list.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
Yet the poll also has the SNP still winning a Holyrood majority narrowly, so free of its hardliners in the new Salmond party it could focus on governing Scotland and not press indyref2 too hard without Westminster approval.
Unless SIP stands at constituency level not just on the list the SNP will ignore it
On the face of it, I am not sure I agree with the censure here. A piece of material that suggests that Jewish people are the puppeteers of the world would be disgustingly racist and deserve to be condemned. A piece of material suggesting a real person is puppeteering a situation, based on real evidence pointing to that behaviour (of which I would suggest in Desmond's case there is certainly enough to justify satire) - I am not sure this can be out of bounds, as it effectively shields would-be wrong-doers of a particular culture from negative responses to their actions. To my mind, this is a (lesser) case of the same phenomenon of police not responding to Muslim grooming gangs, for reasons of racial and cultural sensitivity. Likely to backfire.
Don't altogether disagree but the issue is that Desmond is also a Jew therefore it is a question of needing to remain whiter than white on this (if I am still allowed to say that).
Not to say that Desmond is not a slimeball, he may well be just that, but people need to be on their game if they want to go for him.
Edit: I haven't (of course, and in the best PB tradition) read the original tweet or comment by Reed that this references.
This must have set up a few conflicting emotions in certain breasts: bad NHS religion v. good WWII worship religion. I wonder if Airfix will be bringing out a special edition?
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
I disagree for four reasons.
1: We're not protected by water, people travel across borders by air not boat. 2: Social distancing matters and we have one of the least distanced nations in the world. We have one of the highest population densities in the world. 3: This epidemic is far from over. 4: Many other nations figures are not honest or accurate - either by design or incompetence. Ours have been trying to be at least.
There are various reasons for us having the worst outcome in the world. But good luck if you wish to leave "Johnson government response" off the list.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
And sorry to hit you with a cliche but "advisors advise, ministers decide".
So when they ignore advice to do something you agree with then they are taking responsibility and when they ignore it to do something you disagree with they are doing some great crime in your eyes.
I'm saying they (i) should be judged by results and (ii) should not try to palm off responsibility for decisions onto unelected advisors.
Of course (ii) is an obvious avenue - since they must make the challenging argument that a good decision led to a bad result - but imo it ought to be resisted.
If SLAB could actually find a decent leader that would help.
You’ve put your finger on it. The key problem for all the Unionist parties is lack of talent. All three of them have been so negative for so long that they have crippled recruitment. SLab haven’t had a decent intake since the 1980s, with all the good ones since then having slowly drifted off.
Constantly thundering on about how crap Scotland is is designed to discourage young people.
Garden Walker above says that nobody has made a case for the Union for a long time. There are two reasons for this:
1. there is no case to be made 2. even if there were, there is no authoritative, respected voice to deliver it to the key floating voters
Unionists focus far too much on their core voters. That is a hopeless strategy designed to fail. They must reach out to Middle Scotland. Politicians like Johnson, Carlaw, Leonard and Rennie are never going to achieve that. They just wouldn’t know where to start.
54% of Scots voted for Unionist parties at GE19 when you combine the vote for Scottish Tories, Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs.
So technically they are already winning middle Scotland
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
I disagree for four reasons.
1: We're not protected by water, people travel across borders by air not boat. 2: Social distancing matters and we have one of the least distanced nations in the world. We have one of the highest population densities in the world. 3: This epidemic is far from over. 4: Many other nations figures are not honest or accurate - either by design or incompetence. Ours have been trying to be at least.
There are various reasons for us having the worst outcome in the world. But good luck if you wish to leave "Johnson government response" off the list.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
And sorry to hit you with a cliche but "advisors advise, ministers decide".
So when they ignore advice to do something you agree with then they are taking responsibility and when they ignore it to do something you disagree with they are doing some great crime in your eyes.
I'm saying they (i) should be judged by results and (ii) should not try to palm off responsibility for decisions onto unelected advisors.
Of course (ii) is an obvious avenue - since they must make the challenging argument that a good decision led to a bad result - but imo it ought to be resisted.
I'm delighted that you agree with me on this. Not a bad feeling, is it?
We can fly what ever flag we want - do you think the countries/states that currently have the Union flag as part of their flag are going to change theirs? It's a strong brand. Keep it.
The Czech Republic kept the flag of Czechoslovakia. There's no reason the United Kingdom of England and Wales could not cling to the butcher's apron if they wanted.
It would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
I am British and proud of it. I would always describe myself as British unless I was speaking to fellow Brits from another part of the UK in which case I am Scottish. I have no problem with this duality.
What am I proud of? Well, I think the UK has been a force for good in the world many times in its history and still is. I am proud that we are the second largest aid donor in the world; that we have so many magnificent Universities; that we are tolerant as a nation of both race and sexual orientation; that we have a very deep rooted sense of fair play and try to do the right thing.
Of course there are episodes in our history that are shameful, we don't always live up to our principles and we still have minorities of bigots. But when we get things wrong we angst about it, we try to do better and we learn from our mistakes.
I will therefore always be against Scottish independence. I would be diminished as a part of a country that would count for so little in world affairs, whose views were of no consequence and which would frankly be more parochial and inward looking.
As an activist in Better Together I was deeply frustrated by the negative line taken by the likes of Darling. The economic arguments against independence are of course compelling but a transactional view of the Union is one that is ultimately doomed to failure in my view. At some point, if that is all there is, Scots will think that the considerable price to be paid is worth it and that is their right. Unionists need to make the positive case for the Union and for me that has certain implications.
First, if the Scottish people clearly and conclusively say they want a referendum on independence they get it. At the moment there is a Nationalist majority in Holyrood but it was not elected on the basis that they would have a referendum. There were 3 conditions, none of which looked like they were going to be met in that Parliament. An SNP manifesto committed to a second referendum in the next Parliament which gets a majority is a different matter and needs to be respected.
Second, the Scottish people, like a sex partner, are entitled to change their mind at any point and are not bound by the once in a generation commitment. Of course such referenda are economically ruinous doing great damage to our tax base and paralysing domestic politics where there is so much to sort but that is the prerogative of a sovereign people. If they vote for it (and they should consider that vote very carefully) they are entitled to get it.
Third, the proposition that Boris can use his English majority to stop such a thing is simply unacceptable. This is a Union, not a dominion. I cannot think of anything that would be more fatal to the Union than such a stance.
A second referendum is sadly inevitable but the result is very much up for grabs. I will campaign again to keep my country. That country, if it lives up to its principles, will not stand in the way if that is what Scots choose.
Excellent post - although I think many of the values you identify as British are much more widely held than that across Europe and beyond. There are also a lot of parallels in what you say to how many people (though not the majority) feel about the UK and the EU. There is one key difference, though: the UK can rejoin the EU. Once the Union is broken, there is no going back. It is done. It will be a total failure of the Westminster system if it happens.
Of course there are other civilised countries in the world (weirdly, some of them even manage without cricket) but this is our country and we Scots have to choose whether to stay together or not.
The differences with the EU are of degree. It is a startling fact that the EU budget was capped at 1% of GDP of the EU. Public expenditure is roughly 42% of GDP in Scotland and a significant proportion of that is UK spend. Scotland sends approximately 60% of its trade to rUK, 15% to the EU. We were in the EEC, then EU for 50 years and for most of that time it was no more than a trading bloc. We have had full Union with England for more than 300 years. However you cut it Scottish independence would be many, many times more disruptive than leaving the EU and we see what that has done to our country over the last 4 years.
Furthermore, the idea that London in particular will cease to be a magnet for our bright young kids and our money because we had independence really only has to be written down to show its absurdity. Our economy will continue to be dominated by England. The LPF issue will apply to the UK single market. Either we comply with English regulation or we lose that access. Our "independence" will be a fragile thing indeed. But that's the choice.
Do you see any bright sides to independence or is it all negative?
Do you agree with the idea that at least independence will force Scottish politicians to ultimately address Scotland's issues rather than blame London?
Not really. The Irish blamed the Brits for all their ills for the best part of 90 years and I don't see Scottish politicians being any more enlightened.
It might shake up our domestic politics a bit. A Scottish Conservative party detached from the UK may seek to develop a more nuanced manifesto than "no to a second referendum". That would be helpful. It may be that the SNP would split making Scottish politics more pluralistic but I wouldn't count on that. Last I checked the ANC were very much in control of SA.
The economic situation would be extremely grim. There would be major cuts in public spending, increases in taxation and a brain drain to south of the border. This would make constructive debate in Scotland very difficult. I fear bitterness and disillusionment at a level that would make the most ardent remainers blush.
How soon in such a scenario would it be reasonable for pro-Union Scots to campaign for a third Referendum to Rejoin the UK? Moreover, if the economy really did crash in Scotland post Independence, when could regions within Scotland - such as the Orkneys & Shetlands - press for Independence from Scotland and the further option of rejoining RUK?
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
Assuming a probability of one in 7000 then the expected value for the first infected is 7000. That does not mean the chances of it being EXACTLY 7000 is large, infact it is 1.5*10^-5.
The probability of a true positive in the first 400 is 0.0057.
No it's not. That's flawed.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
I would say if you roll a dice 6 times the chance of rolling at least one 6 is approx 2/3 (66%).
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
Assuming a probability of one in 7000 then the expected value for the first infected is 7000. That does not mean the chances of it being EXACTLY 7000 is large, infact it is 1.5*10^-5.
The probability of a true positive in the first 400 is 0.0057.
No it's not. That's flawed.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
I would say if you roll a dice 6 times the chance of rolling at least one 6 is approx 2/3 (66%).
It is indeed, but you also have a greater than 50% chance of having a six by the 4th roll of the dice (52% chance by roll 4).
People who leap from the odds and change that into the number of events are making a terrible failure of logic most of the time.
This has been public knowledge since Saturday since the government changed the way it presents the figures by directing you to the website. It surprises me the media hadn't already picked up on it as it's on the same page as the headline figures. It's also a perfectly reasonable explanation that's given on the website. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public
So it's not a conspiracy or incompetence? It's simply that a single headline figure no longer captures what is happening when some people are having repeat tests, and others routine tests.
Yep, but the short soundbites you see from political journalists on Twitter would have you believe it's the new omnishambles. The government needs to stop tooting it's own horn with these ideas though. It's setting itself up for a fail each time it does. Taking the app as an example, it turned out to be a bit of a bust and test and trace seems to be working relatively well, but the government generated hype over the app which made the U turn look ever more embarrassing. It's the same with this.
The German app has reached 15 million downloads — which is not the same as in use and working — and has had 300 infections reported so far. Which is nowhere near the level that is needed to be really effective, and it is unlikely to reach that level unless it is made mandatory.
300 isn't all that much, but better than zero. Over the last fortnight we had around 4k new cases, so less than 10%. At such a low level of new infections the conventional tracing+tracking seems to work reasonably well. The app will be more useful when (if) the t+t system gets stretched, because new infections may rise sharply in two months time, after further easing of restrictions, holiday travel and school reopenings.
For now, the low and falling level of infections has indeed lead to some complacency regarding app uptake and also distancing and mask wearing. If cases were to rise again, the app will show some of them and, I suspect, more people will be downloading and using it.
We can fly what ever flag we want - do you think the countries/states that currently have the Union flag as part of their flag are going to change theirs? It's a strong brand. Keep it.
The Czech Republic kept the flag of Czechoslovakia. There's no reason the United Kingdom of England and Wales could not cling to the butcher's apron if they wanted.
It would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
I disagree for four reasons.
1: We're not protected by water, people travel across borders by air not boat. 2: Social distancing matters and we have one of the least distanced nations in the world. We have one of the highest population densities in the world. 3: This epidemic is far from over. 4: Many other nations figures are not honest or accurate - either by design or incompetence. Ours have been trying to be at least.
There are various reasons for us having the worst outcome in the world. But good luck if you wish to leave "Johnson government response" off the list.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
And sorry to hit you with a cliche but "advisors advise, ministers decide".
So when they ignore advice to do something you agree with then they are taking responsibility and when they ignore it to do something you disagree with they are doing some great crime in your eyes.
I'm saying they (i) should be judged by results and (ii) should not try to palm off responsibility for decisions onto unelected advisors.
Of course (ii) is an obvious avenue - since they must make the challenging argument that a good decision led to a bad result - but imo it ought to be resisted.
I'm delighted that you agree with me on this. Not a bad feeling, is it?
That is a quirky way of saying "Great Post" but yes indeed - what a feeling.
On the face of it, I am not sure I agree with the censure here. A piece of material that suggests that Jewish people are the puppeteers of the world would be disgustingly racist and deserve to be condemned. A piece of material suggesting a real person is puppeteering a situation, based on real evidence pointing to that behaviour (of which I would suggest in Desmond's case there is certainly enough to justify satire) - I am not sure this can be out of bounds, as it effectively shields would-be wrong-doers of a particular culture from negative responses to their actions. To my mind, this is a (lesser) case of the same phenomenon of police not responding to Muslim grooming gangs, for reasons of racial and cultural sensitivity. Likely to backfire.
Don't altogether disagree but the issue is that Desmond is also a Jew therefore it is a question of needing to remain whiter than white on this (if I am still allowed to say that).
Not to say that Desmond is not a slimeball, he may well be just that, but people need to be on their game if they want to go for him.
Edit: I haven't (of course, and in the best PB tradition) read the original tweet or comment by Reed that this references.
One problem is racism and anti-racism have been internationalised so what used to be benign in this country might now be classed as racist because of the way a trope was used in America or Europe rather than here. Both Labour and Conservative frontbenchers have been caught out by this (and just today MPs of both parties have deleted tweets!).
Unless the government cockblocks Wa-We there will be no F-35A wing at Lakenheath so they've got no choice really. They are just not ready countenance the strategic implications of that.
Presumably also the F-35Bs on the big carriers, too?
... is because Starmer is a politician seeking partisan advantage. That's life, that's politics. Doesn't mean Starmer was calling for anything different at the time, would have done anything different, but he can be a partisan hack seeking partisan advantage with hindsight.
Such is life as an opposition leader.
He wasn't opposition leader at the time.
No but he was a politician and speaking to the media regularly as he was taking part in the leadership contest. He had plenty of opportunity to call for a lockdown if he'd wanted to do so.
It would have been wrong for him to do so, even if he thought he was right. It was a time for people to be united behind the govt and the govt to follow the scientists.
Absolutely it was. And hindsight doesn't change that.
But that won't stop Starmer from pretending now he would have done otherwise even though he never said anything at the time and he would have followed the scientists too.
Same argument with the Iraq War. The government has more information than the opposition and therefore the opposition really has no choice, in such matters - ie in rare crises - other than to follow the government.
Hogwash. An opposition full of dumb warmongering Tories maybe. Funny how the Lib Dem opposition managed to oppose the Iraq war as criminal and imbecilic at the time, and were correct on both counts.
We can fly what ever flag we want - do you think the countries/states that currently have the Union flag as part of their flag are going to change theirs? It's a strong brand. Keep it.
The Czech Republic kept the flag of Czechoslovakia. There's no reason the United Kingdom of England and Wales could not cling to the butcher's apron if they wanted.
It would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
We can fly what ever flag we want - do you think the countries/states that currently have the Union flag as part of their flag are going to change theirs? It's a strong brand. Keep it.
The Czech Republic kept the flag of Czechoslovakia. There's no reason the United Kingdom of England and Wales could not cling to the butcher's apron if they wanted.
It would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Yes. When my first wife left me I did carry around my wedding ring in a pocket for a few months. That was because I was sad and pathetic.
Not something I would wish for the country of my birth.
Excellent post - although I think many of the values you identify as British are much more widely held than that across Europe and beyond. There are also a lot of parallels in what you say to how many people (though not the majority) feel about the UK and the EU. There is one key difference, though: the UK can rejoin the EU. Once the Union is broken, there is no going back. It is done. It will be a total failure of the Westminster system if it happens.
Yes, it will be ironic if Brexit prompts Scotland into making exactly the same kind of mistake as Brexit, based on exactly the same kind of wishful thinking and the same kind of disdain for economic and political realities, in pursuit of the same kind of illusory sovereignty.
Brexit and Scottish Independence are part of the the same political movement. Nostalgic nationalism.
I'm not sure nostalgia is the right word for Scottish Nationalism. Nobody was alive before Scotland was in the Union, and whilst I am not decrying Scotland's cultural achievements before Union (which were many), much of its real cultural and economical heyday took place after it - The Scottish Enlightenment, and the industrial revolution being two examples that spring to mind. It isn't looking back in fondness that drives the Indy movement as far as I can see, but looking back in anger.
Or looking forward in hope.
If one looks at the debates in 2013-2014 the Britnat side was absolutely crammed with historical references to the past glories of Union - e.g the Somme in 1916 in Mr Cameron's keynote speech in Glasgow - whereas the pro-indy side were very much looking forward. See the very different responses in recent weeks to vandalism of the statues of Bruce and Churchill.
That's probably because the past glories on the indy side were fewer, longer ago, and less relatable. That's not a dig, it's just a matter of historical timing. Amnesia about Scottish achievements within the Union is necessary when you're claiming nothing has gone right since 1707, or can go right until the shackles of London rule are torn asunder.
Oh, quite so re timing. But even looking back to 1707 (ands no further) didn't much feature. It was very much now and the future. I don't recall anyone raising Dundas for instance.
By comparison the No campaign seemed like a collection of stories from the Boy's Book of Empire, Tory Party preferred version.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
Assuming a probability of one in 7000 then the expected value for the first infected is 7000. That does not mean the chances of it being EXACTLY 7000 is large, infact it is 1.5*10^-5.
The probability of a true positive in the first 400 is 0.0057.
No it's not. That's flawed.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
I would say if you roll a dice 6 times the chance of rolling at least one 6 is approx 2/3 (66%).
It is indeed, but you also have a greater than 50% chance of having a six by the 4th roll of the dice (52% chance by roll 4).
People who leap from the odds and change that into the number of events are making a terrible failure of logic most of the time.
Tick.
Here's a question I like to pose -
If you were offered 4/1 odds on tails for a single coin toss - fair coin fair toss - what % of your net wealth would you stake on it?
We can fly what ever flag we want - do you think the countries/states that currently have the Union flag as part of their flag are going to change theirs? It's a strong brand. Keep it.
The Czech Republic kept the flag of Czechoslovakia. There's no reason the United Kingdom of England and Wales could not cling to the butcher's apron if they wanted.
It would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
... is because Starmer is a politician seeking partisan advantage. That's life, that's politics. Doesn't mean Starmer was calling for anything different at the time, would have done anything different, but he can be a partisan hack seeking partisan advantage with hindsight.
Such is life as an opposition leader.
He wasn't opposition leader at the time.
No but he was a politician and speaking to the media regularly as he was taking part in the leadership contest. He had plenty of opportunity to call for a lockdown if he'd wanted to do so.
It would have been wrong for him to do so, even if he thought he was right. It was a time for people to be united behind the govt and the govt to follow the scientists.
Absolutely it was. And hindsight doesn't change that.
But that won't stop Starmer from pretending now he would have done otherwise even though he never said anything at the time and he would have followed the scientists too.
Same argument with the Iraq War. The government has more information than the opposition and therefore the opposition really has no choice, in such matters - ie in rare crises - other than to follow the government.
Hogwash. An opposition full of dumb warmongering Tories maybe. Funny how the Lib Dem opposition managed to oppose the Iraq war as criminal and imbecilic at the time, and were correct on both counts.
Yet they believed the govt in 1991 and approved Op Granby.
We’re not going to agree so there’s little point in boring others. We come fundamentally different perspectives.
I believe that Parliament derives its authority from the people. Most of the time that works in the way that you believe.
However the key exceptions are around constitutional affairs: the “rules of the game”.
In order to fundamentally change the rules of the game, likely in perpetuity, the government has to seek direct instruction from the people. And once that instruction is given then it is bound to implement the wishes of the people (in principle, not in detail).
This, the 2017 parliament could not have overturned the 2016 instruction to leave the EU. However they could have approved a BINO/EEA+ model as that was within their authority.
In 2014 the Scottish electorate was asked if they wanted to leave the Union. They said no. That needs to be respected. There will come a point when it is reasonable to ask again - I think 20 years but 25 is just as reasonable. 40 is too long. 7 is too short.
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
I disagree for four reasons.
1: We're not protected by water, people travel across borders by air not boat. 2: Social distancing matters and we have one of the least distanced nations in the world. We have one of the highest population densities in the world. 3: This epidemic is far from over. 4: Many other nations figures are not honest or accurate - either by design or incompetence. Ours have been trying to be at least.
There are various reasons for us having the worst outcome in the world. But good luck if you wish to leave "Johnson government response" off the list.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
And sorry to hit you with a cliche but "advisors advise, ministers decide".
Its not true that we do apart from Belgium, I've already called you out on that. Do we need a list?
We don't even have statistics from a great many countries.
Only Belgium is worse than us on deaths per population according to the comprehensive looking table I saw in The Times Of London newspaper on Saturday.
We can fly what ever flag we want - do you think the countries/states that currently have the Union flag as part of their flag are going to change theirs? It's a strong brand. Keep it.
The Czech Republic kept the flag of Czechoslovakia. There's no reason the United Kingdom of England and Wales could not cling to the butcher's apron if they wanted.
It would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Yes. When my first wife left me I did carry around my wedding ring in a pocket for a few months. That was because I was sad and pathetic.
Not something I would wish for the country of my birth.
So did my dad (for almost the rest of his life) from his fairly short lived marriage to my mum. I'd agree it was certainly sad.
We can fly what ever flag we want - do you think the countries/states that currently have the Union flag as part of their flag are going to change theirs? It's a strong brand. Keep it.
The Czech Republic kept the flag of Czechoslovakia. There's no reason the United Kingdom of England and Wales could not cling to the butcher's apron if they wanted.
It would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
If things went very badly economically in a post-Independent Scotland , support for such a party might take off very quickly- indeed that could also happen elsewhere in Scotland.
If Sturgeon is following "elimination" rather than "suppression", that might account for the tardy re-opening.
If it is elimination then the borders would have to be closed.
Not even Guernsey (66 days no cases) is trying elimination. Jersey opened their borders at the weekend - expecting one positive case in 7,000 arrivals. They got their first after 400.
I'd like to know some more info on that. (a) False positive test ratio (b) How many in the first 7000? That 1 in 7000 has to come at some point. Wouldn't expect it to be number 7000
To answer (b) If it's a true 1 in 7000 chance you'd expect the first true positive to come after 7000 * ln(2) cases = 4852
On what basis?
Assuming a probability of one in 7000 then the expected value for the first infected is 7000. That does not mean the chances of it being EXACTLY 7000 is large, infact it is 1.5*10^-5.
The probability of a true positive in the first 400 is 0.0057.
No it's not. That's flawed.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
I would say if you roll a dice 6 times the chance of rolling at least one 6 is approx 2/3 (66%).
It is indeed, but you also have a greater than 50% chance of having a six by the 4th roll of the dice (52% chance by roll 4).
People who leap from the odds and change that into the number of events are making a terrible failure of logic most of the time.
Tick.
Here's a question I like to pose -
If you were offered 4/1 odds on tails for a single coin toss - fair coin fair toss - what % of your net wealth would you stake on it?
You should wager 37.5% of your total wealth (Kelly criterion) but most people would wager far far less.
On topic, a massive amount of hindsight there. Polls at the time of the lockdown were opposed to it.
Yes. But we'd expect the Government to have had better advice than the random public, and to be willing to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Sometimes it is necessary to lead opinion rather than simply follow it. In a major natural disaster, it is one of those times.
Which the government did at the time. What the government don't have access to is hindsight.
That's the price of power. When you're in charge, if you get it right, all well and good. If you get it wrong, not so good. Especially not if getting it wrong incurs significant costs to life, economy, and/or wellbeing.
It may or may not be unfair, but that's the price of being in power. Personally, I think they (initially) reacted not bad. They screwed up horribly on care homes, they could have locked down a little sooner (but that's completely hindsight), and they were slow at getting some of the support packages together. Personally, while I'd say "yes, they could have acted faster," I wouldn't say that it was reasonable to expect them to have acted significantly faster - without hindsight. For future pandemics, I'd expect faster reaction; for this one, not so much.
It's mainly since then that I think they've messed up more, especially on the messaging side of things.
We can debate this till the cows come home but the hard headline fact of the matter is that if you define the world as not including Belgium - which I think you can get away with - we have the worst Covid outcome in the world. This for a country, 100% protected by water, which sits on the other side of the planet to where the disease started. We have been CRAP.
I disagree for four reasons.
1: We're not protected by water, people travel across borders by air not boat. 2: Social distancing matters and we have one of the least distanced nations in the world. We have one of the highest population densities in the world. 3: This epidemic is far from over. 4: Many other nations figures are not honest or accurate - either by design or incompetence. Ours have been trying to be at least.
There are various reasons for us having the worst outcome in the world. But good luck if you wish to leave "Johnson government response" off the list.
We don't have the worst outcomes in the world.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
And sorry to hit you with a cliche but "advisors advise, ministers decide".
Its not true that we do apart from Belgium, I've already called you out on that. Do we need a list?
We don't even have statistics from a great many countries.
Only Belgium is worse than us on deaths per population according to the comprehensive looking table I saw in The Times Of London newspaper on Saturday.
Perhaps you can give us reliable death figures from the likes of New York, Iran, Brazil etc so we can compare?
Comments
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/06/trump-senate-politico-forecast-349529
Rice dropping again. Now at 4.7. Harris edging up.
A lot of Ericsson is ex-Nortel.
If you roll a fair dice six times the odds of rolling a six is 1/6. If you repeatedly roll the dice the expected value for the first six is not six though.
https://twitter.com/spectator/status/1280116284378644480
Except they didn't.
And the SAGE advice to the Government on 16th March was that lockdown policies should begin within 2-3 weeks. In the event they introduced them after only 1 week. They ignored scientific advice to introduce lockdown sooner than suggested.
You can see all of this in the SAGE documentation
https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response
One of the more disappointing aspects of the government’s performance is their apparent incapacity to admit they might have made mistakes in their response.
The most blatant example of that is, of course, care homes - where for a couple of crucial weeks it was deliberate government policy to strongly encourage the discharge of non critical infected patients from hospitals.
That also applies, though, to their policies on major events just before the lockdown, and the timing if the lockdown itself.
And masks, where they were ludicrously slow to recognise their effectiveness - and are still failing sufficiently to encourage their use and ensure their availability.
And sorry to hit you with a cliche but "advisors advise, ministers decide".
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/07/06/is_strzok_memo_the_rosetta_stone_of_obamagate_143628.html
Not being posted to sign some new light onto things - each side will interpret as they wish. It is more to flag why Biden might hesitate about having Rice as his VP pick *
* I've put some money on Rice as a covering bet as she has a lot of pluses but this is the issue that worries me about putting more
2.1 Harris
5.4 Rice
10 Duckworth
11 Demings
https://twitter.com/DJD/status/1280120566347956229
As I noted earlier, my criticism is that from the outset Boris outsourced government to Chris Witty. He did it in order to provide a firebreak between the govt's actions and the outcomes. But that's not how it works.
Not keep it up and justify it.
We don't even have statistics from a great many countries.
Unless SIP stands at constituency level not just on the list the SNP will ignore it
Not to say that Desmond is not a slimeball, he may well be just that, but people need to be on their game if they want to go for him.
Edit: I haven't (of course, and in the best PB tradition) read the original tweet or comment by Reed that this references.
Of course (ii) is an obvious avenue - since they must make the challenging argument that a good decision led to a bad result - but imo it ought to be resisted.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
People who leap from the odds and change that into the number of events are making a terrible failure of logic most of the time.
For now, the low and falling level of infections has indeed lead to some complacency regarding app uptake and also distancing and mask wearing. If cases were to rise again, the app will show some of them and, I suspect, more people will be downloading and using it.
However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
https://twitter.com/Jefferson_MFG/status/1279776282549587968?s=20
Not something I would wish for the country of my birth.
By comparison the No campaign seemed like a collection of stories from the Boy's Book of Empire, Tory Party preferred version.
Here's a question I like to pose -
If you were offered 4/1 odds on tails for a single coin toss - fair coin fair toss - what % of your net wealth would you stake on it?
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
Re: constitutional reform
We’re not going to agree so there’s little point in boring others. We come fundamentally different perspectives.
I believe that Parliament derives its authority from the people. Most of the time that works in the way that you believe.
However the key exceptions are around constitutional affairs: the “rules of the game”.
In order to fundamentally change the rules of the game, likely in perpetuity, the government has to seek direct instruction from the people. And once that instruction is given then it is bound to implement the wishes of the people (in principle, not in detail).
This, the 2017 parliament could not have overturned the 2016 instruction to leave the EU. However they could have approved a BINO/EEA+ model as that was within their authority.
In 2014 the Scottish electorate was asked if they wanted to leave the Union. They said no. That needs to be respected. There will come a point when it is reasonable to ask again - I think 20 years but 25 is just as reasonable. 40 is too long. 7 is too short.