The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Scottish nationalism is largely driven by a massive inferiority complex vis-a-vis England and burning resentment that goes back years.
They want to join the EU so they can use its heft to "do" to us what they think Ireland has done to us in the last 2-3 years, which they are massively jealous about and it's getting them very aroused.
In reality rather than shaping the agenda they'd be supplicants to whatever Eurofederalism is on the table without changing the agenda one bit. They don't even have the reasonance that Ireland does in the USA to attract American FDI.
Still, they'd be rid of the English which is what this is really all about.
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
As soon as Scottish voters start returning candidates to Westminster from mainstream UK political parties rather than separatists.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
@Pagan2 are you the type who will kick off if an acquaintance suggests going to a different restaurant which has a more varied vegan selection?
Not at all I will kick off and refuse if they wish to goto a restaurant that only has vegan options though
I'm an enthusiastic meat eater, but there are some great Indian vegetarian restaurants around Drummond Street in London.
I really don't mind so much despite my quip eating something vegetarian however I do want the choice not to. There have been times I have eaten something that is vegetarian....though not vegan definitely because it sounded nice. You insist on going to a restaurant where your choice is forced on me and that is rude. It would be like me taking a friend that doesnt like fish to a seafood restaurant
But 'meat' or 'not meat' is just one of many choices.
'Indian' or 'Italian' is another. My choice of Indian precludes you getting spaghetti carbonara.
It's rude for hosts to fail to take into account the desires of their guests. But it's also true that there are types of cuisine - like kosher (no pig or shellfish) or Indian/Hindu (no cows) - that omit certain ingredients.
I'd check everyone was OK with an Indian vegetarian restaurant before booking it, but I'd also think someone was a little... shall we say... closed minded, if they refused to try a cuisine type because of the absence of one ingredient.
I have a friend that doesnt like indian food. When we are out with him we dont goto indian restaurants. I don't see whats inconsiderate about making sure you goto a place where everyone can order something they are happy with.
In the case of your indian vegetarian restaurant. I am sure the food is great. However while I have tried lots of indian vegetarian dishes (mainly as sides admittedly) I cant say I have liked many. I am not partial to spinach, chick peas or panneer which most seem to contain at least one of. So I would probably just politely order the cheapest and nibble a little. But I doubt I would go home thinking that was a damn good meal
These Indian vegetarian are not vegetarian because they are catering to people who don't like meat, it's because they're regional South Indian restaurants, and the local cuisine doesn't have meat in it (because they're Hindus and there are no sheep in the area to eat).
I didn't suggest they were, I merely commented if major components were spinach, chickpeas or paneer then I was unlikely to like them.
Personally my view when selecting a restaurant is everyone should be able to find something they are happy to order and will enjoy. If they are grudgingly ordering the thing they think they will find least offensive then I failed to be considerate.
That is the only point I was making. A lot of vegetarian dishes have things in them that people while not necessarily eating meat in principle will not like the taste of. For example I love chilli however if you put red kidney beans in it not touching it with a barge pole. Its not that they are vegetables I just hate the texture and taste of them and it turns a pleasant meal into an ordeal to endure.
Its often not about the lack of meat but the crap that gets thrown in instead
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Are you sure?
I think the state aid, competition and financial services regimes of the EU would (and will) look very different without us around.
We opposed a lot of the duff regulations, especially wrt mifid II and solvency II and they still went through largely unchanged other than a few token differences. We opposed the ill advised BRDD and that's now on the statute book. State aid I know less about, but I know that it's treated a a set of guidelines by some countries and rules by others which makes having them a bit rubbish.
I also think all EU regulations should come with a gigantic asterisk because the ECJ can and will adjust their interpretation to suit the political agenda. The Apple/Ireland ruling was the first time in absolutely ages they didn't, though it would have been tough given the Irish case put forwards that it can't have been state aid because the no tax deal is available to any company, international or Irish.
The "passport" for financial services was entirely a British invention. The state aid regime was the Brits and the Dutch against everyone else, and while it hasn't been universally followed (the French in particular fight it all the time), the amount of subsidies doled out around the continent is dramatically lower than it was in the Eighties.
The ECJ point is a good one, although the example of state aid demonstrates that even that has it's limits.
I think there's something else at work, though.
When we get other people to behave as we think they should, we sort of forget it (it's hardly news). When other people get us to change our behaviour it rankles. It's why supranational institutions are fundamentally difficult to make work.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
As soon as Scottish voters start returning candidates to Westminster from mainstream UK political parties rather than separatists.
Oddly if the SNP became like BQ in Canada they would weild a significant amount of power as probable king makers in 2/5 elections. But with independence on the agenda no party will countenance a coalition with them.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
Hasn’t this been the case for many years. It was just as bad when the labour regime was in charge and I have no doubt when Starmer wins in 2024 this will be the case a few years into his term. It’s a rotten system where failure is rewarded with advancement and promotion for merely being part of the ‘chumocracy’ as one journalist put it.
According to a number of complacent types on here, we should not be bothered by this because - well, that was never really explained.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
The chumocracy has always been a thing with all sides sadly. This is why Martha lane fox who has never succeeded at anything in her life got ennobled and continues to be asked to run things which then fail. Ditto Dido harding and plenty of males the same these two just sprang to mind because of hardings recent appointment
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
No, I am not very happy with that either.
Not only do they keep the data they keep the intellectual property too. I cannot see why that is compatible with the Data Protection Act, where data can only be kept for explicit purposes, and that requires consent.
If this goes ahead, I will not co-operate with this agency. My medical (and relevant family) data is shared with medical professionals for one purpose and one purpose only, to provide me with medical treatment. It is not for use by McKinsey or any other private company for some unspecified purpose.
No way am I co operating with any Tracing App if my data is misused.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Hasn’t this been the case for many years. It was just as bad when the labour regime was in charge and I have no doubt when Starmer wins in 2024 this will be the case a few years into his term. It’s a rotten system where failure is rewarded with advancement and promotion for merely being part of the ‘chumocracy’ as one journalist put it.
According to a number of complacent types on here, we should not be bothered by this because - well, that was never really explained.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
The chumocracy has always been a thing with all sides sadly. This is why Martha lane fox who has never succeeded at anything in her life got ennobled and continues to be asked to run things which then fail. Ditto Dido harding and plenty of males the same these two just sprang to mind because of hardings recent appointment
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
As soon as Scottish voters start returning candidates to Westminster from mainstream UK political parties rather than separatists.
C'mon Jocks, start voting for EU separatists and we'll let you dip your beak.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Are you sure?
I think the state aid, competition and financial services regimes of the EU would (and will) look very different without us around.
We opposed a lot of the duff regulations, especially wrt mifid II and solvency II and they still went through largely unchanged other than a few token differences. We opposed the ill advised BRDD and that's now on the statute book. State aid I know less about, but I know that it's treated a a set of guidelines by some countries and rules by others which makes having them a bit rubbish.
I also think all EU regulations should come with a gigantic asterisk because the ECJ can and will adjust their interpretation to suit the political agenda. The Apple/Ireland ruling was the first time in absolutely ages they didn't, though it would have been tough given the Irish case put forwards that it can't have been state aid because the no tax deal is available to any company, international or Irish.
The "passport" for financial services was entirely a British invention. The state aid regime was the Brits and the Dutch against everyone else, and while it hasn't been universally followed (the French in particular fight it all the time), the amount of subsidies doled out around the continent is dramatically lower than it was in the Eighties.
The ECJ point is a good one, although the example of state aid demonstrates that even that has it's limits.
I think there's something else at work, though.
When we get other people to behave as we think they should, we sort of forget it (it's hardly news). When other people get us to change our behaviour it rankles. It's why supranational institutions are fundamentally difficult to make work.
Why doesn’t that apply to other countries within the EU?
Hasn’t this been the case for many years. It was just as bad when the labour regime was in charge and I have no doubt when Starmer wins in 2024 this will be the case a few years into his term. It’s a rotten system where failure is rewarded with advancement and promotion for merely being part of the ‘chumocracy’ as one journalist put it.
According to a number of complacent types on here, we should not be bothered by this because - well, that was never really explained.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
The chumocracy has always been a thing with all sides sadly. This is why Martha lane fox who has never succeeded at anything in her life got ennobled and continues to be asked to run things which then fail. Ditto Dido harding and plenty of males the same these two just sprang to mind because of hardings recent appointment
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
No, I am not very happy with that either.
Not only do they keep the data they keep the intellectual property too. I cannot see why that is compatible with the Data Protection Act, where data can only be kept for explicit purposes, and that requires consent.
If this goes ahead, I will not co-operate with this agency. My medical (and relevant family) data is shared with medical professionals for one purpose and one purpose only, to provide me with medical treatment. It is not for use by McKinsey or any other private company for some unspecified purpose.
No way am I co operating with any Tracing App if my data is misused.
How will you know if its misused. No one is telling you what McKinseys is doing with it and you cant do an foi to find out.
We need to stop thinking we will stop giving them data if they abuse it because by then its too late and say no not giving them data in the first place
Hasn’t this been the case for many years. It was just as bad when the labour regime was in charge and I have no doubt when Starmer wins in 2024 this will be the case a few years into his term. It’s a rotten system where failure is rewarded with advancement and promotion for merely being part of the ‘chumocracy’ as one journalist put it.
According to a number of complacent types on here, we should not be bothered by this because - well, that was never really explained.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
The chumocracy has always been a thing with all sides sadly. This is why Martha lane fox who has never succeeded at anything in her life got ennobled and continues to be asked to run things which then fail. Ditto Dido harding and plenty of males the same these two just sprang to mind because of hardings recent appointment
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
No, I am not very happy with that either.
Not only do they keep the data they keep the intellectual property too. I cannot see why that is compatible with the Data Protection Act, where data can only be kept for explicit purposes, and that requires consent.
If this goes ahead, I will not co-operate with this agency. My medical (and relevant family) data is shared with medical professionals for one purpose and one purpose only, to provide me with medical treatment. It is not for use by McKinsey or any other private company for some unspecified purpose.
No way am I co operating with any Tracing App if my data is misused.
How will you know if its misused. No one is telling you what McKinseys is doing with it and you cant do an foi to find out.
We need to stop thinking we will stop giving them data if they abuse it because by then its too late and say no not giving them data in the first place
I won't download the App until the whole data pathway is known.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
You had Gordon Brown, not our fault he was useless.
The last Prime Minister to win a general election representing a Scottish constituency was Bonar Law in 1922. (Douglas-Home and Brown didn't win a GE)
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
This Government is destroying the Union day by day.
People on here were warning about this back in 2016 and that was with a more Conservative govt than the UKIP-lite we have now.
You are a beautiful example of the phenomena I've just posted about in response to @MaxPB
You have been driven mad by Brexit, and are now delighted that there's a new course of revenge that's potentially about to get served up on the table.
I do find it ironic that people insist that taking back control is ok regardless of the economic costs but it's not OK to give control back to a different group of people.
The only person I can think of on this site who is adamant there should be no second referendum even if the Scots vote to hold one is HYUFD - and he's a Remainer.
Not entirely. The result of a Holyrood election which sees turnout of circa 50% should not override a Referendum in respect of which 85% voted. The lower turnout for Holyrood v Westminster too would tend to suggest that voters in Scotland see it as a lower or secondary tier of authority.
The Holyrood election won't be overriding the Referendum. Overriding the referendum would be taking an SNP majority as a Yes vote. Instead the Holyrood election would merely set the stage for a new vote. Only a Yes Referendum can overturn the No.
As for lower turnout there is a very simple rule in politics: If you don't vote, you can't complain. If the 35% who didn't vote all don't want a second referendum then they should vote to say so. If they don't, that's their choice.
The SNP are seeking to use next year's Holyrood election to obtain a mandate - as they see it - to revist a decision taken by a clear margin in September 2014 on a turnout of circa 85%. The SNP First Minister at the time clearly stated that the decision then taken was to be binding 'for a generation'. A subsequent election on a circa 50% turnout for a second tier authority which lacks the authority to take such a decision cannot reasonably be viewed as a mandate - whether morally or legally. Holyrood can do no more than ask Westminster for such a vote . Westminster has every right to say 'No - Come back post 2035!'
That is a whacking fib - Salmond did not say indyref was binding for a generation, he just said it was th ekind of opportunity that comes along in a generation - and it had been since the first devolution vote was fiddled by Labour in 1978. ,
As any ful kno, once in a generation was written into the Edinburgh Agreement.
'Douglas Ross claimed in his BBC Good Morning Scotland interview that Nicola Sturgeon signed an agreement with the UK and Scottish Governments that the 2014 referendum would be a “once in a generation” vote.'
So D.Ross, the new satrap of the the Conservative & Unionist party in Scotland, was lying?
Not sure who this Salmon bloke is, seems a bit fishy.
You got me there.
Did you watch the video though?
No Parliament can bind its successor.
If the Scots want to decide its time for a new referendum that's their choice. If they think that it shouldn't happen for a generation that's their choice.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
As soon as Scottish voters start returning candidates to Westminster from mainstream UK political parties rather than separatists.
C'mon Jocks, start voting for EU separatists and we'll let you dip your beak.
The LDs are pro Union and more Scottish LDs than SNP voters voted to stay in the EU in 2016
I've never been bothered by vegetarianism. I'm not even bothered by having vegan options on a menu or even occasionally eating something that qualifies from time to time - isn't beans on toast or a nice fresh garden salad "vegan"? But I am bothered by veganism "crowding out" traditional pub grub and its mission to convert the rest of us into its ideology, from which it brooks no dissent.
It's not content with 2-3% of the population. It wants *everyone* to stop eating meat and go vegan, and prosthelytizes accordingly. It will end with society and public policy making it much hard for me to eat a balanced traditional diet and its dogma needs to be contested.
Why am I unhappy with that nearby pub of mine? Because it's cut a lot of dishes I love (bangers and mash, fish pie, chilli con carne, and shepherds pie) in favour of these 'right on' dishes that have reduced my choice.
So it is affecting me: it is restricting my choices and it isn't complementary - it's displacing.
Veganism is getting political. I ultimately worry it will end up as another front in the culture wars. Restaurants and pubs will polarise around it and we will tediously have to take sides, both professionally and socially, when we eat out and be judged accordingly. Or worse.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Are you sure?
I think the state aid, competition and financial services regimes of the EU would (and will) look very different without us around.
We opposed a lot of the duff regulations, especially wrt mifid II and solvency II and they still went through largely unchanged other than a few token differences. We opposed the ill advised BRDD and that's now on the statute book. State aid I know less about, but I know that it's treated a a set of guidelines by some countries and rules by others which makes having them a bit rubbish.
I also think all EU regulations should come with a gigantic asterisk because the ECJ can and will adjust their interpretation to suit the political agenda. The Apple/Ireland ruling was the first time in absolutely ages they didn't, though it would have been tough given the Irish case put forwards that it can't have been state aid because the no tax deal is available to any company, international or Irish.
The "passport" for financial services was entirely a British invention. The state aid regime was the Brits and the Dutch against everyone else, and while it hasn't been universally followed (the French in particular fight it all the time), the amount of subsidies doled out around the continent is dramatically lower than it was in the Eighties.
The ECJ point is a good one, although the example of state aid demonstrates that even that has it's limits.
I think there's something else at work, though.
When we get other people to behave as we think they should, we sort of forget it (it's hardly news). When other people get us to change our behaviour it rankles. It's why supranational institutions are fundamentally difficult to make work.
Why doesn’t that apply to other countries within the EU?
Because the other countries got us to fight their battles, see Macron accusing the Dutch of taking on the role of the British in the last EU summit. They'd sit idly and let the UK take all of the flak for something they also wanted and a lot of times oppose us to score points with the rest of them, the Dutch and Swedes were experts at the second tactic. We do all of the hard work of opposition and they score points as "good Europeans" for being in favour while benefiting from our position.
It's going to be a very tough road for frugal nations in the EU without the UK, we barely won any battles but as Robert pointed out, our presence was probably a restraining factor.
Hasn’t this been the case for many years. It was just as bad when the labour regime was in charge and I have no doubt when Starmer wins in 2024 this will be the case a few years into his term. It’s a rotten system where failure is rewarded with advancement and promotion for merely being part of the ‘chumocracy’ as one journalist put it.
According to a number of complacent types on here, we should not be bothered by this because - well, that was never really explained.
This level of complacency and low expectations by intelligent people who really should know better is one reason why so many things in this country are really rather second-rate.
The chumocracy has always been a thing with all sides sadly. This is why Martha lane fox who has never succeeded at anything in her life got ennobled and continues to be asked to run things which then fail. Ditto Dido harding and plenty of males the same these two just sprang to mind because of hardings recent appointment
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
No, I am not very happy with that either.
Not only do they keep the data they keep the intellectual property too. I cannot see why that is compatible with the Data Protection Act, where data can only be kept for explicit purposes, and that requires consent.
If this goes ahead, I will not co-operate with this agency. My medical (and relevant family) data is shared with medical professionals for one purpose and one purpose only, to provide me with medical treatment. It is not for use by McKinsey or any other private company for some unspecified purpose.
No way am I co operating with any Tracing App if my data is misused.
How will you know if its misused. No one is telling you what McKinseys is doing with it and you cant do an foi to find out.
We need to stop thinking we will stop giving them data if they abuse it because by then its too late and say no not giving them data in the first place
I won't download the App until the whole data pathway is known.
As I understand it you don't need to download the app. You take a test...all your data is sent to McKinsey if you are positive then they go along to track and trace and pass on the snippets they need to know. They then ring you or knock on your door before coming back and filling in all the extra stuff you tell them.
The app was also about collecting this data and that was the main point of it. The app failed and no one downloaded it so now we have McKinsey
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
They might well have described themselves as primarily British, like most Scots of the period. But again you are changing tack. Did they or did they not have a substantial, indeed disproportionate, influence in British affairs?
This Government is destroying the Union day by day.
People on here were warning about this back in 2016 and that was with a more Conservative govt than the UKIP-lite we have now.
You are a beautiful example of the phenomena I've just posted about in response to @MaxPB
You have been driven mad by Brexit, and are now delighted that there's a new course of revenge that's potentially about to get served up on the table.
I do find it ironic that people insist that taking back control is ok regardless of the economic costs but it's not OK to give control back to a different group of people.
The only person I can think of on this site who is adamant there should be no second referendum even if the Scots vote to hold one is HYUFD - and he's a Remainer.
Not entirely. The result of a Holyrood election which sees turnout of circa 50% should not override a Referendum in respect of which 85% voted. The lower turnout for Holyrood v Westminster too would tend to suggest that voters in Scotland see it as a lower or secondary tier of authority.
The Holyrood election won't be overriding the Referendum. Overriding the referendum would be taking an SNP majority as a Yes vote. Instead the Holyrood election would merely set the stage for a new vote. Only a Yes Referendum can overturn the No.
As for lower turnout there is a very simple rule in politics: If you don't vote, you can't complain. If the 35% who didn't vote all don't want a second referendum then they should vote to say so. If they don't, that's their choice.
The SNP are seeking to use next year's Holyrood election to obtain a mandate - as they see it - to revist a decision taken by a clear margin in September 2014 on a turnout of circa 85%. The SNP First Minister at the time clearly stated that the decision then taken was to be binding 'for a generation'. A subsequent election on a circa 50% turnout for a second tier authority which lacks the authority to take such a decision cannot reasonably be viewed as a mandate - whether morally or legally. Holyrood can do no more than ask Westminster for such a vote . Westminster has every right to say 'No - Come back post 2035!'
They're seeking to get a mandate by standing in an election - what a shocker (!)
That's the purpose of democracy, to seek a mandate at elections. If they win a majority, they get their mandate. Turnout is irrelevant, if people didn't want the SNP to get their mandate they should vote against them.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Quite - and still more power than we do in the UK. That's the point.
If you keep electing MPs that aren't in the government or main opposition that's an expected outcome. A bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.
"the government"?
The English-approved one?
Just think about that assertion you have made.
So you're saying that if Scotland had a massive damascene conversion and elected 40 Tory MPs in the next election that they'd have no say in the government? It's a view.
Other way round. The Scots since the mid-1950s rarely get the UK governments they vote for. So to speak, as you say, only if they vote the way the rUK lets them.
On today's Yougov England would not get the Government it voted for, Starmer would become PM thanks to SNP, Plaid, SDLP and LD support despite a Tory majority in England
I've just been doing a little maths and it has highlighted something in the Covid hospital patient figures which I started to notice some time ago, and have always found rather strange. Consider:
According to the ONS, the proportion of the total UK population living in each of the four constituent home nations was estimated, as of mid-2019, to be as follows:
England 84.3% Scotland 8.2% Wales 4.7% NI 2.8%
Back on the 17th of April, near the peak of the pandemic, the proportions of total UK Covid-19 patients in hospital, in each of the four nations, were as follows:
England 85.1% Scotland 8.6% Wales 4.7% NI 1.6%
So, the Covid patients were distributed approximately in proportion to the populations of the nations. However, by the 17th of August, the most recent date for which complete data are available, the position is altogether different:
England 63.9% Scotland 27.7% Wales 7.9% NI 0.5%
Anyone have any idea what's going on here?
You are right, it is truly bizarre. Especially when you look at the ICU figure.
Last night in Scotland there were 2 people in total in ICU with Covid. In England there were 63 patients in ventilator beds. And in the main over the last month there has been a far lower proportion of Scottish patients in ICU than English patients whilst at the same time a far higher proportion in hospital at all.
I've just been doing a little maths and it has highlighted something in the Covid hospital patient figures which I started to notice some time ago, and have always found rather strange. Consider:
According to the ONS, the proportion of the total UK population living in each of the four constituent home nations was estimated, as of mid-2019, to be as follows:
England 84.3% Scotland 8.2% Wales 4.7% NI 2.8%
Back on the 17th of April, near the peak of the pandemic, the proportions of total UK Covid-19 patients in hospital, in each of the four nations, were as follows:
England 85.1% Scotland 8.6% Wales 4.7% NI 1.6%
So, the Covid patients were distributed approximately in proportion to the populations of the nations. However, by the 17th of August, the most recent date for which complete data are available, the position is altogether different:
England 63.9% Scotland 27.7% Wales 7.9% NI 0.5%
Anyone have any idea what's going on here?
You are right, it is truly bizarre. Especially when you look at the ICU figure.
Last night in Scotland there were 2 people in total in ICU with Covid. In England there were 63 patients in ventilator beds. And in the main over the last month there has been a far lower proportion of Scottish patients in ICU than English patients whilst at the same time a far higher proportion in hospital at all.
There are some very odd stats around Covid. Look at Wales daily Covid hospital admissions. They should be around a tenth of England’s but are sometimes higher. On the 8th August in England 53 people were admitted to hospital with Covid, in Wales it was 55. How is that possible ?
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
So you're whole argument boils down to unionists aren't real Scots? It's sad that a whole political movement is so incredibly negative.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
And his predecessor was born in Scotland.
In the last 20 years (so what 5 Scottish generations) we've had Scots as Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, and Defence Secretary to name but a few.
The fundamental problem is that England has committed the unforgivable sin of being ten times the size of Scotland. So, if you're Scottish and you've made up your mind that your country is ignored and dominated, then all you have to do is point at the composition of the House of Commons.
It would not, frankly, matter if every member of the cabinet was Scottish - the malcontent fraction of Scottish opinion would always assert that they were serving only at the pleasure of the English electorate.
This particular argument cannot be countered. Even if there had been no Brexit vote, and the Prime Minister were a Scot, and Parliament moved to Glasgow, and a train loaded with a hundred tonnes of Gold were sent North from London to Edinburgh in tribute every year, the Scottish Nationalists would still find plenty to complain of and assert that those problems could only be solved with sovereignty.
They just want to go, they are close to or already beyond 50% of the Scottish electorate, and trying to stop them is a needless, useless waste of energy. The British state is over. It is done.
A bit screechy and a bit point-missing. Substitute "is" for "has committed the unforgivable sin of being" in your first sentence and it comes out a lot less clever and satirical than you want it to be. What is wrong with deciding that you don't want to be forever the junior and minority partner in a partnership? It may be perfectly equitable that you are the junior partner, it may be that your share in the partnership is disproportionately generous - say, you put up 5% of the capital but get 20% of the voting rights. That is still a minority interest and it is entirely legitimate to say that a minority interest, no matter how scrupulously fair the terms of the partnership, is just not what I want.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
I've just been doing a little maths and it has highlighted something in the Covid hospital patient figures which I started to notice some time ago, and have always found rather strange. Consider:
According to the ONS, the proportion of the total UK population living in each of the four constituent home nations was estimated, as of mid-2019, to be as follows:
England 84.3% Scotland 8.2% Wales 4.7% NI 2.8%
Back on the 17th of April, near the peak of the pandemic, the proportions of total UK Covid-19 patients in hospital, in each of the four nations, were as follows:
England 85.1% Scotland 8.6% Wales 4.7% NI 1.6%
So, the Covid patients were distributed approximately in proportion to the populations of the nations. However, by the 17th of August, the most recent date for which complete data are available, the position is altogether different:
England 63.9% Scotland 27.7% Wales 7.9% NI 0.5%
Anyone have any idea what's going on here?
You are right, it is truly bizarre. Especially when you look at the ICU figure.
Last night in Scotland there were 2 people in total in ICU with Covid. In England there were 63 patients in ventilator beds. And in the main over the last month there has been a far lower proportion of Scottish patients in ICU than English patients whilst at the same time a far higher proportion in hospital at all.
I've just been doing a little maths and it has highlighted something in the Covid hospital patient figures which I started to notice some time ago, and have always found rather strange. Consider:
According to the ONS, the proportion of the total UK population living in each of the four constituent home nations was estimated, as of mid-2019, to be as follows:
England 84.3% Scotland 8.2% Wales 4.7% NI 2.8%
Back on the 17th of April, near the peak of the pandemic, the proportions of total UK Covid-19 patients in hospital, in each of the four nations, were as follows:
England 85.1% Scotland 8.6% Wales 4.7% NI 1.6%
So, the Covid patients were distributed approximately in proportion to the populations of the nations. However, by the 17th of August, the most recent date for which complete data are available, the position is altogether different:
England 63.9% Scotland 27.7% Wales 7.9% NI 0.5%
Anyone have any idea what's going on here?
You are right, it is truly bizarre. Especially when you look at the ICU figure.
Last night in Scotland there were 2 people in total in ICU with Covid. In England there were 63 patients in ventilator beds. And in the main over the last month there has been a far lower proportion of Scottish patients in ICU than English patients whilst at the same time a far higher proportion in hospital at all.
There are some very odd stats around Covid. Look at Wales daily Covid hospital admissions. They should be around a tenth of England’s but are sometimes higher. On the 8th August in England 53 people were admitted to hospital with Covid, in Wales it was 55. How is that possible ?
We need to get More Or Less / Tim Harford to investigate.
@Pagan2 are you the type who will kick off if an acquaintance suggests going to a different restaurant which has a more varied vegan selection?
Not at all I will kick off and refuse if they wish to goto a restaurant that only has vegan options though
I'm an enthusiastic meat eater, but there are some great Indian vegetarian restaurants around Drummond Street in London.
I really don't mind so much despite my quip eating something vegetarian however I do want the choice not to. There have been times I have eaten something that is vegetarian....though not vegan definitely because it sounded nice. You insist on going to a restaurant where your choice is forced on me and that is rude. It would be like me taking a friend that doesnt like fish to a seafood restaurant
But 'meat' or 'not meat' is just one of many choices.
'Indian' or 'Italian' is another. My choice of Indian precludes you getting spaghetti carbonara.
It's rude for hosts to fail to take into account the desires of their guests. But it's also true that there are types of cuisine - like kosher (no pig or shellfish) or Indian/Hindu (no cows) - that omit certain ingredients.
I'd check everyone was OK with an Indian vegetarian restaurant before booking it, but I'd also think someone was a little... shall we say... closed minded, if they refused to try a cuisine type because of the absence of one ingredient.
I have a friend that doesnt like indian food. When we are out with him we dont goto indian restaurants. I don't see whats inconsiderate about making sure you goto a place where everyone can order something they are happy with.
In the case of your indian vegetarian restaurant. I am sure the food is great. However while I have tried lots of indian vegetarian dishes (mainly as sides admittedly) I cant say I have liked many. I am not partial to spinach, chick peas or panneer which most seem to contain at least one of. So I would probably just politely order the cheapest and nibble a little. But I doubt I would go home thinking that was a damn good meal
These Indian vegetarian are not vegetarian because they are catering to people who don't like meat, it's because they're regional South Indian restaurants, and the local cuisine doesn't have meat in it (because they're Hindus and there are no sheep in the area to eat).
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
WHat's so interesting about PB today as opposed to 2013-14 is that some of the the southerners (well, including northern English) are making our arguments for us Scottish independistas. Quite often I don't need to comment. That is quite a sea change.
The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are very similar to those for and against Brexit.
The only thing that puzzles me really are those who seem to want to become independent of the UK only to go straight into the EU.
Not necessarily. The representation in the EU would be far superior to the representation within the UK. Just think how little consultation is currently made ny the "UK" Government - it is more likely to change the laws retrospectively than actually adhere to them.
The UK, with all of its economic might and diplomatic power had basically no influence in the EU. You have a shockingly naive view of how Scotland's membership will unfold. I can understand wanting to be in the EU as a smaller nation but don't lie to yourself about how much representation Scotland would actually end up with, you would be on par with Estonia or Finland.
Are you sure?
I think the state aid, competition and financial services regimes of the EU would (and will) look very different without us around.
We opposed a lot of the duff regulations, especially wrt mifid II and solvency II and they still went through largely unchanged other than a few token differences. We opposed the ill advised BRDD and that's now on the statute book. State aid I know less about, but I know that it's treated a a set of guidelines by some countries and rules by others which makes having them a bit rubbish.
I also think all EU regulations should come with a gigantic asterisk because the ECJ can and will adjust their interpretation to suit the political agenda. The Apple/Ireland ruling was the first time in absolutely ages they didn't, though it would have been tough given the Irish case put forwards that it can't have been state aid because the no tax deal is available to any company, international or Irish.
The "passport" for financial services was entirely a British invention. The state aid regime was the Brits and the Dutch against everyone else, and while it hasn't been universally followed (the French in particular fight it all the time), the amount of subsidies doled out around the continent is dramatically lower than it was in the Eighties.
The ECJ point is a good one, although the example of state aid demonstrates that even that has it's limits.
I think there's something else at work, though.
When we get other people to behave as we think they should, we sort of forget it (it's hardly news). When other people get us to change our behaviour it rankles. It's why supranational institutions are fundamentally difficult to make work.
Why doesn’t that apply to other countries within the EU?
I don't know about all the other member states, but for the UK the EU always felt like this tedious but necessary, transactional organisation. When we got what we wanted out of it, the successes and advantages were rarely trumpeted by our Governments; when those Governments were obliged to give ground, to compromise, to pool sovereignty, then their opponents were always quick to denounce them and highlight the drawbacks.
The passion - and the righteous indignation - was all on the separatist side. Remind you of anything else?
@Pagan2 are you the type who will kick off if an acquaintance suggests going to a different restaurant which has a more varied vegan selection?
Not at all I will kick off and refuse if they wish to goto a restaurant that only has vegan options though
I'm an enthusiastic meat eater, but there are some great Indian vegetarian restaurants around Drummond Street in London.
I really don't mind so much despite my quip eating something vegetarian however I do want the choice not to. There have been times I have eaten something that is vegetarian....though not vegan definitely because it sounded nice. You insist on going to a restaurant where your choice is forced on me and that is rude. It would be like me taking a friend that doesnt like fish to a seafood restaurant
But 'meat' or 'not meat' is just one of many choices.
'Indian' or 'Italian' is another. My choice of Indian precludes you getting spaghetti carbonara.
It's rude for hosts to fail to take into account the desires of their guests. But it's also true that there are types of cuisine - like kosher (no pig or shellfish) or Indian/Hindu (no cows) - that omit certain ingredients.
I'd check everyone was OK with an Indian vegetarian restaurant before booking it, but I'd also think someone was a little... shall we say... closed minded, if they refused to try a cuisine type because of the absence of one ingredient.
I have a friend that doesnt like indian food. When we are out with him we dont goto indian restaurants. I don't see whats inconsiderate about making sure you goto a place where everyone can order something they are happy with.
In the case of your indian vegetarian restaurant. I am sure the food is great. However while I have tried lots of indian vegetarian dishes (mainly as sides admittedly) I cant say I have liked many. I am not partial to spinach, chick peas or panneer which most seem to contain at least one of. So I would probably just politely order the cheapest and nibble a little. But I doubt I would go home thinking that was a damn good meal
These Indian vegetarian are not vegetarian because they are catering to people who don't like meat, it's because they're regional South Indian restaurants, and the local cuisine doesn't have meat in it (because they're Hindus and there are no sheep in the area to eat).
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
And indeed Global affairs as a consequence.
If they want to go back and try and do Darien schemes again with no money then that's their choice, I guess.
@Pagan2 are you the type who will kick off if an acquaintance suggests going to a different restaurant which has a more varied vegan selection?
Not at all I will kick off and refuse if they wish to goto a restaurant that only has vegan options though
I'm an enthusiastic meat eater, but there are some great Indian vegetarian restaurants around Drummond Street in London.
I really don't mind so much despite my quip eating something vegetarian however I do want the choice not to. There have been times I have eaten something that is vegetarian....though not vegan definitely because it sounded nice. You insist on going to a restaurant where your choice is forced on me and that is rude. It would be like me taking a friend that doesnt like fish to a seafood restaurant
But 'meat' or 'not meat' is just one of many choices.
'Indian' or 'Italian' is another. My choice of Indian precludes you getting spaghetti carbonara.
It's rude for hosts to fail to take into account the desires of their guests. But it's also true that there are types of cuisine - like kosher (no pig or shellfish) or Indian/Hindu (no cows) - that omit certain ingredients.
I'd check everyone was OK with an Indian vegetarian restaurant before booking it, but I'd also think someone was a little... shall we say... closed minded, if they refused to try a cuisine type because of the absence of one ingredient.
I have a friend that doesnt like indian food. When we are out with him we dont goto indian restaurants. I don't see whats inconsiderate about making sure you goto a place where everyone can order something they are happy with.
In the case of your indian vegetarian restaurant. I am sure the food is great. However while I have tried lots of indian vegetarian dishes (mainly as sides admittedly) I cant say I have liked many. I am not partial to spinach, chick peas or panneer which most seem to contain at least one of. So I would probably just politely order the cheapest and nibble a little. But I doubt I would go home thinking that was a damn good meal
These Indian vegetarian are not vegetarian because they are catering to people who don't like meat, it's because they're regional South Indian restaurants, and the local cuisine doesn't have meat in it (because they're Hindus and there are no sheep in the area to eat).
Hindus have never lectured me about diet.
Vegans do.
Try spending an evening with my mum.
Is that because she's Hindu, or because she's your mum?
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
Yes, possibly....... but opinions can also revert. Look at Quebec. Seemed destined for indy and separation was deemed inevitable, the die was cast, the emotions set in place... and yet the 2nd ref was very narrowly lost and now Quebec indy is barely an issue.
Pendulums swing. Always.
Moreover: polls during a global pandemic should be treated with caution, on all sides. Emotions run high. This, by the way, is true of polls giving Boris 30 point leads as of polls giving Starmer sudden popularity.
I know that Quebec is sometimes raised in discussion about a second Scottish referendum, but there are certain important differences between the position of Quebec in Canada and Scotland in the UK. Quebec has a strong sense of its own identity but it has never been a state. Scotland has many separate institutions and traditions that have survived throughout the last three centuries, and the collective memory of being one of the most ancient nations of Europe.
Quebecois secession would've carved English Canada in two and left Newfoundland and the Atlantics cut off. If Scotland goes then there are no bits of England to the North of it to be left out on a limb; it would rather cut Northern Ireland off from the rest of the country, to be sure, but I'm not sure how many people in England and Wales would be that bothered by this, to be honest.
The situation in Quebec was rescued largely by the rest of Canada love-bombing it. I'm just not sure what proportion of the population in England and Wales is prepared to plead with Scotland to stick around. I think that's a combination of benign neglect, and the awareness that they're not happy and are always complaining about something so they might as well go and do their own thing.
I don't actively want the UK to break up, but I don't believe that the political will exists to make it work again and nor do I believe that the popular will exists in Scotland even to try. So one might as well resign oneself to the inevitable, move on and look on the bright side. Besides anything else, we're a lot safer from loony leftism in England if the bloc vote from the Scottish central belt is no longer there to act as an ally.
That is not really true, plenty of Canadians were fed up of Quebecois whinging and happy to be rid of them in 1995 but it was the fact Quebec got devomax effectively and more powers than any other Canadian province that saw No narrowly win
@Pagan2 are you the type who will kick off if an acquaintance suggests going to a different restaurant which has a more varied vegan selection?
Not at all I will kick off and refuse if they wish to goto a restaurant that only has vegan options though
I'm an enthusiastic meat eater, but there are some great Indian vegetarian restaurants around Drummond Street in London.
I really don't mind so much despite my quip eating something vegetarian however I do want the choice not to. There have been times I have eaten something that is vegetarian....though not vegan definitely because it sounded nice. You insist on going to a restaurant where your choice is forced on me and that is rude. It would be like me taking a friend that doesnt like fish to a seafood restaurant
But 'meat' or 'not meat' is just one of many choices.
'Indian' or 'Italian' is another. My choice of Indian precludes you getting spaghetti carbonara.
It's rude for hosts to fail to take into account the desires of their guests. But it's also true that there are types of cuisine - like kosher (no pig or shellfish) or Indian/Hindu (no cows) - that omit certain ingredients.
I'd check everyone was OK with an Indian vegetarian restaurant before booking it, but I'd also think someone was a little... shall we say... closed minded, if they refused to try a cuisine type because of the absence of one ingredient.
I have a friend that doesnt like indian food. When we are out with him we dont goto indian restaurants. I don't see whats inconsiderate about making sure you goto a place where everyone can order something they are happy with.
In the case of your indian vegetarian restaurant. I am sure the food is great. However while I have tried lots of indian vegetarian dishes (mainly as sides admittedly) I cant say I have liked many. I am not partial to spinach, chick peas or panneer which most seem to contain at least one of. So I would probably just politely order the cheapest and nibble a little. But I doubt I would go home thinking that was a damn good meal
These Indian vegetarian are not vegetarian because they are catering to people who don't like meat, it's because they're regional South Indian restaurants, and the local cuisine doesn't have meat in it (because they're Hindus and there are no sheep in the area to eat).
Hindus have never lectured me about diet.
Vegans do.
Tell them to f**k off and mind their own business.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
They might well have described themselves as primarily British, like most Scots of the period. But again you are changing tack. Did they or did they not have a substantial, indeed disproportionate, influence in British affairs?
It's the same process of rewriting history that now casts Scotland as the victim of the British empire, not one of the major driving forces. It's sad that such a once proud nation is reduced to such a huge level of cognitive dissonance.
I've never been bothered by vegetarianism. I'm not even bothered by having vegan options on a menu or even occasionally eating something that qualifies from time to time - isn't beans on toast or a nice fresh garden salad "vegan"? But I am bothered by veganism "crowding out" traditional pub grub and its mission to convert the rest of us into its ideology, from which it brooks no dissent.
It's not content with 2-3% of the population. It wants *everyone* to stop eating meat and go vegan, and prosthelytizes accordingly. It will end with society and public policy making it much hard for me to eat a balanced traditional diet and its dogma needs to be contested.
Why am I unhappy with that nearby pub of mine? Because it's cut a lot of dishes I love (bangers and mash, fish pie, chilli con carne, and shepherds pie) in favour of these 'right on' dishes that have reduced my choice.
So it is affecting me: it is restricting my choices and it isn't complementary - it's displacing.
Veganism is getting political. I ultimately worry it will end up as another front in the culture wars. Restaurants and pubs will polarise around it and we will tediously have to take sides, both professionally and socially, when we eat out and be judged accordingly. Or worse.
I've never been bothered by vegetarianism. I'm not even bothered by having vegan options on a menu or even occasionally eating something that qualifies from time to time - isn't beans on toast or a nice fresh garden salad "vegan"? But I am bothered by veganism "crowding out" traditional pub grub and its mission to convert the rest of us into its ideology, from which it brooks no dissent.
It's not content with 2-3% of the population. It wants *everyone* to stop eating meat and go vegan, and prosthelytizes accordingly. It will end with society and public policy making it much hard for me to eat a balanced traditional diet and its dogma needs to be contested.
Why am I unhappy with that nearby pub of mine? Because it's cut a lot of dishes I love (bangers and mash, fish pie, chilli con carne, and shepherds pie) in favour of these 'right on' dishes that have reduced my choice.
So it is affecting me: it is restricting my choices and it isn't complementary - it's displacing.
Veganism is getting political. I ultimately worry it will end up as another front in the culture wars. Restaurants and pubs will polarise around it and we will tediously have to take sides, both professionally and socially, when we eat out and be judged accordingly. Or worse.
Surely, though, pubs that serve food that everyone wants to eat will do better and vegan restaurants will go out of business?
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
So you're whole argument boils down to unionists aren't real Scots? It's sad that a whole political movement is so incredibly negative.
I think he calls them "loyalists".
They like to use a bit of sectarian language, they do.
It's the same process of rewriting history that now casts Scotland as the victim of the British empire, not one of the major driving forces. It's sad that such a once proud nation is reduced to such a huge level of cognitive dissonance.
Yes, that's one of the most hilarious aspects of the ScotNat hypocrisy. If it wasn't for the fact that all this nonsense is potentially going to have real-world and disagreeable consequences, mostly but not only for Scotland, one could just sit back and laugh at it.
@Pagan2 are you the type who will kick off if an acquaintance suggests going to a different restaurant which has a more varied vegan selection?
Not at all I will kick off and refuse if they wish to goto a restaurant that only has vegan options though
I'm an enthusiastic meat eater, but there are some great Indian vegetarian restaurants around Drummond Street in London.
I really don't mind so much despite my quip eating something vegetarian however I do want the choice not to. There have been times I have eaten something that is vegetarian....though not vegan definitely because it sounded nice. You insist on going to a restaurant where your choice is forced on me and that is rude. It would be like me taking a friend that doesnt like fish to a seafood restaurant
But 'meat' or 'not meat' is just one of many choices.
'Indian' or 'Italian' is another. My choice of Indian precludes you getting spaghetti carbonara.
It's rude for hosts to fail to take into account the desires of their guests. But it's also true that there are types of cuisine - like kosher (no pig or shellfish) or Indian/Hindu (no cows) - that omit certain ingredients.
I'd check everyone was OK with an Indian vegetarian restaurant before booking it, but I'd also think someone was a little... shall we say... closed minded, if they refused to try a cuisine type because of the absence of one ingredient.
I have a friend that doesnt like indian food. When we are out with him we dont goto indian restaurants. I don't see whats inconsiderate about making sure you goto a place where everyone can order something they are happy with.
In the case of your indian vegetarian restaurant. I am sure the food is great. However while I have tried lots of indian vegetarian dishes (mainly as sides admittedly) I cant say I have liked many. I am not partial to spinach, chick peas or panneer which most seem to contain at least one of. So I would probably just politely order the cheapest and nibble a little. But I doubt I would go home thinking that was a damn good meal
These Indian vegetarian are not vegetarian because they are catering to people who don't like meat, it's because they're regional South Indian restaurants, and the local cuisine doesn't have meat in it (because they're Hindus and there are no sheep in the area to eat).
@rcs1000 I don't get why you think vegetarianism is peculiar to South India. It isn't (I speak as someone born in southern India!).
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
So you're whole argument boils down to unionists aren't real Scots? It's sad that a whole political movement is so incredibly negative.
I've never been bothered by vegetarianism. I'm not even bothered by having vegan options on a menu or even occasionally eating something that qualifies from time to time - isn't beans on toast or a nice fresh garden salad "vegan"? But I am bothered by veganism "crowding out" traditional pub grub and its mission to convert the rest of us into its ideology, from which it brooks no dissent.
It's not content with 2-3% of the population. It wants *everyone* to stop eating meat and go vegan, and prosthelytizes accordingly. It will end with society and public policy making it much hard for me to eat a balanced traditional diet and its dogma needs to be contested.
Why am I unhappy with that nearby pub of mine? Because it's cut a lot of dishes I love (bangers and mash, fish pie, chilli con carne, and shepherds pie) in favour of these 'right on' dishes that have reduced my choice.
So it is affecting me: it is restricting my choices and it isn't complementary - it's displacing.
Veganism is getting political. I ultimately worry it will end up as another front in the culture wars. Restaurants and pubs will polarise around it and we will tediously have to take sides, both professionally and socially, when we eat out and be judged accordingly. Or worse.
Surely, though, pubs that serve food that everyone wants to eat will do better and vegan restaurants will go out of business?
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
I've never been bothered by vegetarianism. I'm not even bothered by having vegan options on a menu or even occasionally eating something that qualifies from time to time - isn't beans on toast or a nice fresh garden salad "vegan"? But I am bothered by veganism "crowding out" traditional pub grub and its mission to convert the rest of us into its ideology, from which it brooks no dissent.
It's not content with 2-3% of the population. It wants *everyone* to stop eating meat and go vegan, and prosthelytizes accordingly. It will end with society and public policy making it much hard for me to eat a balanced traditional diet and its dogma needs to be contested.
Why am I unhappy with that nearby pub of mine? Because it's cut a lot of dishes I love (bangers and mash, fish pie, chilli con carne, and shepherds pie) in favour of these 'right on' dishes that have reduced my choice.
So it is affecting me: it is restricting my choices and it isn't complementary - it's displacing.
Veganism is getting political. I ultimately worry it will end up as another front in the culture wars. Restaurants and pubs will polarise around it and we will tediously have to take sides, both professionally and socially, when we eat out and be judged accordingly. Or worse.
Surely, though, pubs that serve food that everyone wants to eat will do better and vegan restaurants will go out of business?
There used to be a quite good vegetarian restaurant on Marylebone High Street. I think the increasing vegetarian and even vegan choices in most normal restaurants probably did put it out of business.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
They might well have described themselves as primarily British, like most Scots of the period. But again you are changing tack. Did they or did they not have a substantial, indeed disproportionate, influence in British affairs?
British people having an influence British affairs, whatever next? Still, at least you've admitted Scottish Britishness is 'of the period', we'll soon have you in the 21st century.
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
I've never been bothered by vegetarianism. I'm not even bothered by having vegan options on a menu or even occasionally eating something that qualifies from time to time - isn't beans on toast or a nice fresh garden salad "vegan"? But I am bothered by veganism "crowding out" traditional pub grub and its mission to convert the rest of us into its ideology, from which it brooks no dissent.
It's not content with 2-3% of the population. It wants *everyone* to stop eating meat and go vegan, and prosthelytizes accordingly. It will end with society and public policy making it much hard for me to eat a balanced traditional diet and its dogma needs to be contested.
Why am I unhappy with that nearby pub of mine? Because it's cut a lot of dishes I love (bangers and mash, fish pie, chilli con carne, and shepherds pie) in favour of these 'right on' dishes that have reduced my choice.
So it is affecting me: it is restricting my choices and it isn't complementary - it's displacing.
Veganism is getting political. I ultimately worry it will end up as another front in the culture wars. Restaurants and pubs will polarise around it and we will tediously have to take sides, both professionally and socially, when we eat out and be judged accordingly. Or worse.
Surely, though, pubs that serve food that everyone wants to eat will do better and vegan restaurants will go out of business?
Of course they will. Just like bars that went non smoking before the smoking ban tended to go bankrupt. Given the increasing nanny state attitudes of our governments I have no doubt it won't be more than a decade or two before some are calling for a sin tax on meat then dissuading eateries from serving it. Just as now more and more places are only giving the option of sugar free drinks.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
They might well have described themselves as primarily British, like most Scots of the period. But again you are changing tack. Did they or did they not have a substantial, indeed disproportionate, influence in British affairs?
British people having an influence British affairs, whatever next? Still at least you've admitted Scottish Britishness is 'of the period,' we'll soon have you in the 21st century.
I'll take that as the nearest I'm going to get to a gracious concession that I was right.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
I've never been bothered by vegetarianism. I'm not even bothered by having vegan options on a menu or even occasionally eating something that qualifies from time to time - isn't beans on toast or a nice fresh garden salad "vegan"? But I am bothered by veganism "crowding out" traditional pub grub and its mission to convert the rest of us into its ideology, from which it brooks no dissent.
It's not content with 2-3% of the population. It wants *everyone* to stop eating meat and go vegan, and prosthelytizes accordingly. It will end with society and public policy making it much hard for me to eat a balanced traditional diet and its dogma needs to be contested.
Why am I unhappy with that nearby pub of mine? Because it's cut a lot of dishes I love (bangers and mash, fish pie, chilli con carne, and shepherds pie) in favour of these 'right on' dishes that have reduced my choice.
So it is affecting me: it is restricting my choices and it isn't complementary - it's displacing.
Veganism is getting political. I ultimately worry it will end up as another front in the culture wars. Restaurants and pubs will polarise around it and we will tediously have to take sides, both professionally and socially, when we eat out and be judged accordingly. Or worse.
Surely, though, pubs that serve food that everyone wants to eat will do better and vegan restaurants will go out of business?
If someone wants to create a vegan restaurant then so be it, I though would have no intention of going there.
My irritation with vegans though is those people who b***h and moan about a restaurants menu and leave 1 star reviews marking them down because there's not enough vegan options - if you don't like the menu don't go there, don't try and hurt the business because it isn't your style. I wouldn't go to a vegan restaurant and leave a 1 star review because there's no meat options
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
So you're whole argument boils down to unionists aren't real Scots? It's sad that a whole political movement is so incredibly negative.
Please guys, get a new asshole/argument.
So no answer then? Are Scottish people who support the union and think of themselves as British before Scottish, really Scottish? It's a simple question.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
They might well have described themselves as primarily British, like most Scots of the period. But again you are changing tack. Did they or did they not have a substantial, indeed disproportionate, influence in British affairs?
British people having an influence British affairs, whatever next? Still at least you've admitted Scottish Britishness is 'of the period,' we'll soon have you in the 21st century.
I'll take that as the nearest I'm going to get to a gracious concession that I was right.
It's better than I got, which was almost "I'm not listening lalalalalala, if I don't hear it then it's not real".
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I've never been bothered by vegetarianism. I'm not even bothered by having vegan options on a menu or even occasionally eating something that qualifies from time to time - isn't beans on toast or a nice fresh garden salad "vegan"? But I am bothered by veganism "crowding out" traditional pub grub and its mission to convert the rest of us into its ideology, from which it brooks no dissent.
It's not content with 2-3% of the population. It wants *everyone* to stop eating meat and go vegan, and prosthelytizes accordingly. It will end with society and public policy making it much hard for me to eat a balanced traditional diet and its dogma needs to be contested.
Why am I unhappy with that nearby pub of mine? Because it's cut a lot of dishes I love (bangers and mash, fish pie, chilli con carne, and shepherds pie) in favour of these 'right on' dishes that have reduced my choice.
So it is affecting me: it is restricting my choices and it isn't complementary - it's displacing.
Veganism is getting political. I ultimately worry it will end up as another front in the culture wars. Restaurants and pubs will polarise around it and we will tediously have to take sides, both professionally and socially, when we eat out and be judged accordingly. Or worse.
Surely, though, pubs that serve food that everyone wants to eat will do better and vegan restaurants will go out of business?
Yes, that's the market theory.
The reality is there's huge social and political pressures from the Left now to go vegan or be seen to be vegan which is starting to affect everyone - and it's growing.
That's why the ideology needs to be tackled at its roots, particularly amongst the young who are most susceptible to it.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Perhaps, but what guarantee is there of the "right" mutation coming along in a given time period? Mutations are random. It might take 10 years or 10,000 or 10 million.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
They might well have described themselves as primarily British, like most Scots of the period. But again you are changing tack. Did they or did they not have a substantial, indeed disproportionate, influence in British affairs?
What does "disproportionate" mean in this context? That Scots are, say, 5% of the population but make, say, 7.5% of the decisions? In most federal and supranational organisations like the USA, EU, UN the members are level pegging even if they happen to be Rhode Island or Malta.
What seems to be an unequivocal benefit of choosing Harris:
Harris sets off Democratic donor stampede https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/kamala-harris-democratic-donors-398656 ... Harris flashed her fundraising muscle with jaw-dropping totals: The Biden campaign raised $25.5 million the day following her addition to the ticket. That number ballooned to $48 million in two days. The top four fundraising days for Biden’s campaign have now all come within a week of Harris’ selection.
For comparison, the campaign’s previous single best fundraising day came in at $10 million on June 30, at the close of the second quarter fundraising period...
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
So you're whole argument boils down to unionists aren't real Scots? It's sad that a whole political movement is so incredibly negative.
Please guys, get a new asshole/argument.
Is it possible for you to have a discussion with anyone without being so sarcastic or snide?
I've just been doing a little maths and it has highlighted something in the Covid hospital patient figures which I started to notice some time ago, and have always found rather strange. Consider:
According to the ONS, the proportion of the total UK population living in each of the four constituent home nations was estimated, as of mid-2019, to be as follows:
England 84.3% Scotland 8.2% Wales 4.7% NI 2.8%
Back on the 17th of April, near the peak of the pandemic, the proportions of total UK Covid-19 patients in hospital, in each of the four nations, were as follows:
England 85.1% Scotland 8.6% Wales 4.7% NI 1.6%
So, the Covid patients were distributed approximately in proportion to the populations of the nations. However, by the 17th of August, the most recent date for which complete data are available, the position is altogether different:
England 63.9% Scotland 27.7% Wales 7.9% NI 0.5%
Anyone have any idea what's going on here?
You are right, it is truly bizarre. Especially when you look at the ICU figure.
Last night in Scotland there were 2 people in total in ICU with Covid. In England there were 63 patients in ventilator beds. And in the main over the last month there has been a far lower proportion of Scottish patients in ICU than English patients whilst at the same time a far higher proportion in hospital at all.
I've just been doing a little maths and it has highlighted something in the Covid hospital patient figures which I started to notice some time ago, and have always found rather strange. Consider:
According to the ONS, the proportion of the total UK population living in each of the four constituent home nations was estimated, as of mid-2019, to be as follows:
England 84.3% Scotland 8.2% Wales 4.7% NI 2.8%
Back on the 17th of April, near the peak of the pandemic, the proportions of total UK Covid-19 patients in hospital, in each of the four nations, were as follows:
England 85.1% Scotland 8.6% Wales 4.7% NI 1.6%
So, the Covid patients were distributed approximately in proportion to the populations of the nations. However, by the 17th of August, the most recent date for which complete data are available, the position is altogether different:
England 63.9% Scotland 27.7% Wales 7.9% NI 0.5%
Anyone have any idea what's going on here?
You are right, it is truly bizarre. Especially when you look at the ICU figure.
Last night in Scotland there were 2 people in total in ICU with Covid. In England there were 63 patients in ventilator beds. And in the main over the last month there has been a far lower proportion of Scottish patients in ICU than English patients whilst at the same time a far higher proportion in hospital at all.
There are some very odd stats around Covid. Look at Wales daily Covid hospital admissions. They should be around a tenth of England’s but are sometimes higher. On the 8th August in England 53 people were admitted to hospital with Covid, in Wales it was 55. How is that possible ?
We need to get More Or Less / Tim Harford to investigate.
As Wales has less than 100 in hospital with Covid the daily admission figure is clearly made up, much like PHE daily death figure was.
What seems to be an unequivocal benefit of choosing Harris:
Harris sets off Democratic donor stampede https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/kamala-harris-democratic-donors-398656 ... Harris flashed her fundraising muscle with jaw-dropping totals: The Biden campaign raised $25.5 million the day following her addition to the ticket. That number ballooned to $48 million in two days. The top four fundraising days for Biden’s campaign have now all come within a week of Harris’ selection.
For comparison, the campaign’s previous single best fundraising day came in at $10 million on June 30, at the close of the second quarter fundraising period...
Is that because of Harris - or because of the timing and the DNC and now the election is getting real?
I've never been bothered by vegetarianism. I'm not even bothered by having vegan options on a menu or even occasionally eating something that qualifies from time to time - isn't beans on toast or a nice fresh garden salad "vegan"? But I am bothered by veganism "crowding out" traditional pub grub and its mission to convert the rest of us into its ideology, from which it brooks no dissent.
It's not content with 2-3% of the population. It wants *everyone* to stop eating meat and go vegan, and prosthelytizes accordingly. It will end with society and public policy making it much hard for me to eat a balanced traditional diet and its dogma needs to be contested.
Why am I unhappy with that nearby pub of mine? Because it's cut a lot of dishes I love (bangers and mash, fish pie, chilli con carne, and shepherds pie) in favour of these 'right on' dishes that have reduced my choice.
So it is affecting me: it is restricting my choices and it isn't complementary - it's displacing.
Veganism is getting political. I ultimately worry it will end up as another front in the culture wars. Restaurants and pubs will polarise around it and we will tediously have to take sides, both professionally and socially, when we eat out and be judged accordingly. Or worse.
You seem extremely bothered by it.
I've explained my points of reference and my reasoning in my posts.
I don't object to any dietary choice in principle (that's the individual's choice) but I do when it starts to affect my own or clearly threatens to do so.
What seems to be an unequivocal benefit of choosing Harris:
Harris sets off Democratic donor stampede https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/kamala-harris-democratic-donors-398656 ... Harris flashed her fundraising muscle with jaw-dropping totals: The Biden campaign raised $25.5 million the day following her addition to the ticket. That number ballooned to $48 million in two days. The top four fundraising days for Biden’s campaign have now all come within a week of Harris’ selection.
For comparison, the campaign’s previous single best fundraising day came in at $10 million on June 30, at the close of the second quarter fundraising period...
Interesting. I wonder how much of that is specifically a benefit of choosing her, though? Would it have been any different if the choice had been one of the other serious, mainstream candidates?
Still, good news for the Dems. They are going to need lots of advertising firepower.
Veganism is a feature of Taiwanese Buddhists. Around 15% of the population. I heartily suggest a visit to one of their restaurants if anyone ever ventures out that way. And then tell me it ain't good. Yum!
I've just been doing a little maths and it has highlighted something in the Covid hospital patient figures which I started to notice some time ago, and have always found rather strange. Consider:
According to the ONS, the proportion of the total UK population living in each of the four constituent home nations was estimated, as of mid-2019, to be as follows:
England 84.3% Scotland 8.2% Wales 4.7% NI 2.8%
Back on the 17th of April, near the peak of the pandemic, the proportions of total UK Covid-19 patients in hospital, in each of the four nations, were as follows:
England 85.1% Scotland 8.6% Wales 4.7% NI 1.6%
So, the Covid patients were distributed approximately in proportion to the populations of the nations. However, by the 17th of August, the most recent date for which complete data are available, the position is altogether different:
England 63.9% Scotland 27.7% Wales 7.9% NI 0.5%
Anyone have any idea what's going on here?
You are right, it is truly bizarre. Especially when you look at the ICU figure.
Last night in Scotland there were 2 people in total in ICU with Covid. In England there were 63 patients in ventilator beds. And in the main over the last month there has been a far lower proportion of Scottish patients in ICU than English patients whilst at the same time a far higher proportion in hospital at all.
I've just been doing a little maths and it has highlighted something in the Covid hospital patient figures which I started to notice some time ago, and have always found rather strange. Consider:
According to the ONS, the proportion of the total UK population living in each of the four constituent home nations was estimated, as of mid-2019, to be as follows:
England 84.3% Scotland 8.2% Wales 4.7% NI 2.8%
Back on the 17th of April, near the peak of the pandemic, the proportions of total UK Covid-19 patients in hospital, in each of the four nations, were as follows:
England 85.1% Scotland 8.6% Wales 4.7% NI 1.6%
So, the Covid patients were distributed approximately in proportion to the populations of the nations. However, by the 17th of August, the most recent date for which complete data are available, the position is altogether different:
England 63.9% Scotland 27.7% Wales 7.9% NI 0.5%
Anyone have any idea what's going on here?
You are right, it is truly bizarre. Especially when you look at the ICU figure.
Last night in Scotland there were 2 people in total in ICU with Covid. In England there were 63 patients in ventilator beds. And in the main over the last month there has been a far lower proportion of Scottish patients in ICU than English patients whilst at the same time a far higher proportion in hospital at all.
There are some very odd stats around Covid. Look at Wales daily Covid hospital admissions. They should be around a tenth of England’s but are sometimes higher. On the 8th August in England 53 people were admitted to hospital with Covid, in Wales it was 55. How is that possible ?
We need to get More Or Less / Tim Harford to investigate.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
Well you better get used to it. This is what's about to happen. Westminster will say the question of referendums is reserved to Westminster, and will refuse.
The Nats will take it to the Supreme Court, and there they will lose, because the law is on the side of Westminster. It is not a grey area.
It will be a massive constitutional crisis, that I grant you. And it may in itself further the end of the Union. But the Tories will think fuck it, if the Union is likely finished anyway, let it not happen on our watch, and maybe something will turn up.
Prepare for this to be an endless debate from 2021-2024, when a probable Starmer government with NOM will finally have to seize the thistle
The fundamental point is that Boris Johnson, nor any likely successor should he step down early, will want to have their Premiership terminated by the loss of Scotland - which appears inevitable in the medium term. They therefore, as you suggest, have nothing left to lose by prevaricating.
The rupture of the Union can then be blamed on Labour, which strikes one as just desserts since Blair and his mates wrecked the constitutional structure of the UK for their own ends when they created asymmetric devolution in the first place. Labour sowed the wind...
Yes, indeed. Though I am less pessimistic than you on the inevitable end of the union.
Partition is much likelier than it was 3, 5, 10, 30 years ago, but inevitable? No. I do not think it is even probable. The economic case against it is so horrendous, even if the emotional case is being won by the Nats, at the mo.
But yes, the Union is in peril. Which is why no Tory PM will agree to a referendum til 2024 as long as the law is on his/her side. Which it is.
And yeah, Blair is to blame. What a total fuck-up he turned out to be.
The economic case was the main card that the Remain campaign had at their disposal, and look what happened to them.
If most Scots no longer feel British, no longer want Government from London, and regard the English as foreigners or even colonisers, then the Union is done for. I think that's where we now are. They've turned their backs on us, they're ready to move on, and making high-pitched whines about the Barnett formula, the public spending deficit and the pound won't make a jot of difference. It's over.
Yes, possibly....... but opinions can also revert. Look at Quebec. Seemed destined for indy and separation was deemed inevitable, the die was cast, the emotions set in place... and yet the 2nd ref was very narrowly lost and now Quebec indy is barely an issue.
Pendulums swing. Always.
Moreover: polls during a global pandemic should be treated with caution, on all sides. Emotions run high. This, by the way, is true of polls giving Boris 30 point leads as of polls giving Starmer sudden popularity.
I know that Quebec is sometimes raised in discussion about a second Scottish referendum, but there are certain important differences between the position of Quebec in Canada and Scotland in the UK. Quebec has a strong sense of its own identity but it has never been a state. Scotland has many separate institutions and traditions that have survived throughout the last three centuries, and the collective memory of being one of the most ancient nations of Europe.
Quebecois secession would've carved English Canada in two and left Newfoundland and the Atlantics cut off. If Scotland goes then there are no bits of England to the North of it to be left out on a limb; it would rather cut Northern Ireland off from the rest of the country, to be sure, but I'm not sure how many people in England and Wales would be that bothered by this, to be honest.
The situation in Quebec was rescued largely by the rest of Canada love-bombing it. I'm just not sure what proportion of the population in England and Wales is prepared to plead with Scotland to stick around. I think that's a combination of benign neglect, and the awareness that they're not happy and are always complaining about something so they might as well go and do their own thing.
I don't actively want the UK to break up, but I don't believe that the political will exists to make it work again and nor do I believe that the popular will exists in Scotland even to try. So one might as well resign oneself to the inevitable, move on and look on the bright side. Besides anything else, we're a lot safer from loony leftism in England if the bloc vote from the Scottish central belt is no longer there to act as an ally.
That is not really true, plenty of Canadians were fed up of Quebecois whinging and happy to be rid of them in 1995 but it was the fact Quebec got devomax effectively and more powers than any other Canadian province that saw No narrowly win
Ran that past the memsahib who is from Montreal and she agreed (and with the love-bombing comment) but added that the Yes side were spooked in the final weeks by the number of businesses and amount of capital exiting the Province when sepaartion was looking likely. Wasn't massive but enough maybe to tip the balance in a close-run thing.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
So you're whole argument boils down to unionists aren't real Scots? It's sad that a whole political movement is so incredibly negative.
Please guys, get a new asshole/argument.
Is it possible for you to have a discussion with anyone without being so sarcastic or snide?
You know with these nats that when they become insulting or use phrases like "anti-Scotland" they've run out of road. Their whole movement is built on nothing, they pretend to be hard done by for centuries and perpetual victims when Scotland has been involved in absolutely everything that England has done for 300 years including subjugation of half of the world and slavery.
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
No they are not. Veganism is a lifestyle that can only be supported when there is a large amount of foods available. If you are starving or malnourished, you will eat anything you can get your hands on.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
No, they are fundamentally wrong. Humans have been eating an omnivorous balanced diet since the dawn of time.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
They might well have described themselves as primarily British, like most Scots of the period. But again you are changing tack. Did they or did they not have a substantial, indeed disproportionate, influence in British affairs?
British people having an influence British affairs, whatever next? Still at least you've admitted Scottish Britishness is 'of the period,' we'll soon have you in the 21st century.
I'll take that as the nearest I'm going to get to a gracious concession that I was right.
I think we both know that you're only interested in one person telling you that you're right.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
And his predecessor was born in Scotland.
In the last 20 years (so what 5 Scottish generations) we've had Scots as Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, and Defence Secretary to name but a few.
The fundamental problem is that England has committed the unforgivable sin of being ten times the size of Scotland. So, if you're Scottish and you've made up your mind that your country is ignored and dominated, then all you have to do is point at the composition of the House of Commons.
It would not, frankly, matter if every member of the cabinet was Scottish - the malcontent fraction of Scottish opinion would always assert that they were serving only at the pleasure of the English electorate.
This particular argument cannot be countered. Even if there had been no Brexit vote, and the Prime Minister were a Scot, and Parliament moved to Glasgow, and a train loaded with a hundred tonnes of Gold were sent North from London to Edinburgh in tribute every year, the Scottish Nationalists would still find plenty to complain of and assert that those problems could only be solved with sovereignty.
They just want to go, they are close to or already beyond 50% of the Scottish electorate, and trying to stop them is a needless, useless waste of energy. The British state is over. It is done.
A bit screechy and a bit point-missing. Substitute "is" for "has committed the unforgivable sin of being" in your first sentence and it comes out a lot less clever and satirical than you want it to be. What is wrong with deciding that you don't want to be forever the junior and minority partner in a partnership? It may be perfectly equitable that you are the junior partner, it may be that your share in the partnership is disproportionately generous - say, you put up 5% of the capital but get 20% of the voting rights. That is still a minority interest and it is entirely legitimate to say that a minority interest, no matter how scrupulously fair the terms of the partnership, is just not what I want.
Unfortunately it is often the way that it feels sitting down here. We are painted as the oppressor, particularly amongst the more radical wing of Scottish Nationalism. Salmond was obliged at one point to assert that Scotland was not a colony precisely because so many of his outriders insisted that it was.
Anyway, I think all I was really trying to get at is that there is no point in saying how much influence Scotland has within the structure of the British state, if the Scots have made up their minds that they are powerless. In some respects it is disappointing and really rather sad, because Scotland is not powerless, it's not somehow singled out for some special form of abuse, and believe it or not there's no shortage out there of other people, other cities and other regions elsewhere in the UK that also do not get the Government they want out of Westminster elections 100% of the time.
But there's no further point in making arguments like that, because the party we are attempting to convince has already turned a deaf ear. It is time to give up and walk away.
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
Veganism is a feature of Taiwanese Buddhists. Around 15% of the population. I heartily suggest a visit to one of their restaurants if anyone ever ventures out that way. And then tell me it ain't good. Yum!
I live in a city where Gujerati vegetarians are a substantial part of the population, alongside Sikhs and others. There are no shortage of meat eating places too, but the quality of vegan and vegetarian food is so good that is easy to not eat meat without even noticing.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
So you're whole argument boils down to unionists aren't real Scots? It's sad that a whole political movement is so incredibly negative.
Please guys, get a new asshole/argument.
Is it possible for you to have a discussion with anyone without being so sarcastic or snide?
Yep, just not with people about whose opinion I'm not overly bothered.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
So you're whole argument boils down to unionists aren't real Scots? It's sad that a whole political movement is so incredibly negative.
Please guys, get a new asshole/argument.
Is it possible for you to have a discussion with anyone without being so sarcastic or snide?
Yep, just not with people about whose opinion I'm not overly bothered.
Charming.
So why do you spend so much time on here debating with them then?
I've never been bothered by vegetarianism. I'm not even bothered by having vegan options on a menu or even occasionally eating something that qualifies from time to time - isn't beans on toast or a nice fresh garden salad "vegan"? But I am bothered by veganism "crowding out" traditional pub grub and its mission to convert the rest of us into its ideology, from which it brooks no dissent.
It's not content with 2-3% of the population. It wants *everyone* to stop eating meat and go vegan, and prosthelytizes accordingly. It will end with society and public policy making it much hard for me to eat a balanced traditional diet and its dogma needs to be contested.
Why am I unhappy with that nearby pub of mine? Because it's cut a lot of dishes I love (bangers and mash, fish pie, chilli con carne, and shepherds pie) in favour of these 'right on' dishes that have reduced my choice.
So it is affecting me: it is restricting my choices and it isn't complementary - it's displacing.
Veganism is getting political. I ultimately worry it will end up as another front in the culture wars. Restaurants and pubs will polarise around it and we will tediously have to take sides, both professionally and socially, when we eat out and be judged accordingly. Or worse.
You seem extremely bothered by it.
I've explained my points of reference and my reasoning in my posts.
I don't object to any dietary choice in principle (that's the individual's choice) but I do when it starts to affect my own or clearly threatens to do so.
Veganism has now crossed that threshold.
In taking a few things you like to eat off a menu? It's hardly the Soviet Union. It's a private company making a business decision you disagree with.
Comments
They want to join the EU so they can use its heft to "do" to us what they think Ireland has done to us in the last 2-3 years, which they are massively jealous about and it's getting them very aroused.
In reality rather than shaping the agenda they'd be supplicants to whatever Eurofederalism is on the table without changing the agenda one bit. They don't even have the reasonance that Ireland does in the USA to attract American FDI.
Still, they'd be rid of the English which is what this is really all about.
Personally my view when selecting a restaurant is everyone should be able to find something they are happy to order and will enjoy. If they are grudgingly ordering the thing they think they will find least offensive then I failed to be considerate.
That is the only point I was making. A lot of vegetarian dishes have things in them that people while not necessarily eating meat in principle will not like the taste of. For example I love chilli however if you put red kidney beans in it not touching it with a barge pole. Its not that they are vegetables I just hate the texture and taste of them and it turns a pleasant meal into an ordeal to endure.
Its often not about the lack of meat but the crap that gets thrown in instead
The ECJ point is a good one, although the example of state aid demonstrates that even that has it's limits.
I think there's something else at work, though.
When we get other people to behave as we think they should, we sort of forget it (it's hardly news). When other people get us to change our behaviour it rankles. It's why supranational institutions are fundamentally difficult to make work.
We need to stop thinking we will stop giving them data if they abuse it because by then its too late and say no not giving them data in the first place
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1296156626706214912?s=20
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
If the Scots want to decide its time for a new referendum that's their choice. If they think that it shouldn't happen for a generation that's their choice.
Its called democracy.
I've never been bothered by vegetarianism. I'm not even bothered by having vegan options on a menu or even occasionally eating something that qualifies from time to time - isn't beans on toast or a nice fresh garden salad "vegan"? But I am bothered by veganism "crowding out" traditional pub grub and its mission to convert the rest of us into its ideology, from which it brooks no dissent.
It's not content with 2-3% of the population. It wants *everyone* to stop eating meat and go vegan, and prosthelytizes accordingly. It will end with society and public policy making it much hard for me to eat a balanced traditional diet and its dogma needs to be contested.
Why am I unhappy with that nearby pub of mine? Because it's cut a lot of dishes I love (bangers and mash, fish pie, chilli con carne, and shepherds pie) in favour of these 'right on' dishes that have reduced my choice.
So it is affecting me: it is restricting my choices and it isn't complementary - it's displacing.
Veganism is getting political. I ultimately worry it will end up as another front in the culture wars. Restaurants and pubs will polarise around it and we will tediously have to take sides, both professionally and socially, when we eat out and be judged accordingly. Or worse.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1296156649921675268?s=20
It's going to be a very tough road for frugal nations in the EU without the UK, we barely won any battles but as Robert pointed out, our presence was probably a restraining factor.
The app was also about collecting this data and that was the main point of it. The app failed and no one downloaded it so now we have McKinsey
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1296156649921675268?s=19
https://twitter.com/michaelgove/status/1296183221630177280?s=20
That's the purpose of democracy, to seek a mandate at elections. If they win a majority, they get their mandate. Turnout is irrelevant, if people didn't want the SNP to get their mandate they should vote against them.
Oh.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Vegans do.
The passion - and the righteous indignation - was all on the separatist side. Remind you of anything else?
If they want to go back and try and do Darien schemes again with no money then that's their choice, I guess.
(a) The Brexit Party may not stand again.
(b) It's very unlikely the LDs would actually go as low as 6% in a real election.
So a poll showing say LD 6%, BRX 4% may not be a good guide.
https://twitter.com/michaelgove/status/1296183221630177280?s=20
They like to use a bit of sectarian language, they do.
Isn't that how it should be?
Bernie Sanders 26.5%
Pete Buttigieg 25.1%
Elizabeth Warren 20.3%
Joe Biden 13.7%
Amy Klobuchar 12.2%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iowa_Democratic_presidential_caucuses
Looks nasty in the Bay Area.
https://twitter.com/Negative_Tilt/status/1296004308186480640
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
My irritation with vegans though is those people who b***h and moan about a restaurants menu and leave 1 star reviews marking them down because there's not enough vegan options - if you don't like the menu don't go there, don't try and hurt the business because it isn't your style. I wouldn't go to a vegan restaurant and leave a 1 star review because there's no meat options
The reality is there's huge social and political pressures from the Left now to go vegan or be seen to be vegan which is starting to affect everyone - and it's growing.
That's why the ideology needs to be tackled at its roots, particularly amongst the young who are most susceptible to it.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
Harris sets off Democratic donor stampede
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/kamala-harris-democratic-donors-398656
... Harris flashed her fundraising muscle with jaw-dropping totals: The Biden campaign raised $25.5 million the day following her addition to the ticket. That number ballooned to $48 million in two days. The top four fundraising days for Biden’s campaign have now all come within a week of Harris’ selection.
For comparison, the campaign’s previous single best fundraising day came in at $10 million on June 30, at the close of the second quarter fundraising period...
I don't object to any dietary choice in principle (that's the individual's choice) but I do when it starts to affect my own or clearly threatens to do so.
Veganism has now crossed that threshold.
Still, good news for the Dems. They are going to need lots of advertising firepower.
And then tell me it ain't good.
Yum!
It's absurd.
Anyway, I think all I was really trying to get at is that there is no point in saying how much influence Scotland has within the structure of the British state, if the Scots have made up their minds that they are powerless. In some respects it is disappointing and really rather sad, because Scotland is not powerless, it's not somehow singled out for some special form of abuse, and believe it or not there's no shortage out there of other people, other cities and other regions elsewhere in the UK that also do not get the Government they want out of Westminster elections 100% of the time.
But there's no further point in making arguments like that, because the party we are attempting to convince has already turned a deaf ear. It is time to give up and walk away.
Cowpox.
I get bored of saying that.
So why do you spend so much time on here debating with them then?
It's hardly the Soviet Union.
It's a private company making a business decision you disagree with.