I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I expect the plan from Westminster is to announce they'll allow Indyref2 subject to negotiation on the question. Curtice talks about a possible referendum question - "I agree that the Scottish Government should enter into negotiations with Westminster to secure Independence" in a video I think TheUnionDivvie posted a while ago. Yes/No question that might not be necessary to get through Westminster. Boris ought to be thinking about cutting that off and taking some control of the question.
My belief is that Indyref2 will lose, subject to British Unionism getting serious. British Unionism getting serious is a bit of a gamble given the insulting mess that was Better Together. But a friend - an English Remainer - pointed out that there's something poetic about English Remainers voting for Scottish Independence so they can go back to Europe is tragic enough that it might happen.
Yet without Remain voting Scotland a hard WTO terms Brexit becomes more likely longer term, as both England and Wales voted Leave and a Labour led government less likely with the loss of over 50 non Tory MPs from Scotland
I see people complaining on Twitter that no description of the wanted man who stabbed several people in Birmingham has been released by police.
That can't be right surely?
People do complain on Twitter quite a lot so I'd be inclined to believe it.
Well yes, but in this case I was hoping they were wrong about the facts and now it seems like they are not.
The same thing happened in the Guildford train stabbing when the murderer was on the run and no description was issued by police.
That is what I am wondering about here. In the full clip of the interviewed eye witness he stated that one of the doormen chased the individual shouting I know who you are. Made it sounded like it was a known "face".
Maybe they were hoping said individual returned home not knowing the police were onto him...
Or maybe they were hoping said individual would be apprehended by the Police and not have vigilantes getting in the way lynching the wrong person?
Or perhaps they're still taking witness statements and don't want to taint the evidence by giving a description before they've collated all the witness statements?
Or perhaps a half dozen other reasons.
Can be all sorts of operational reasons the Police want to keep information on an active case confidential. Justice must be done in public but police operations don't need to be.
It does annoy me that the default assumption in all cases is that the police are covering something up in the name of political correctness.
No this happens all the time, here is the description
Black man aged 20-25 acccording to eye witness- wearing black hoodie with two white stripes down front.
If he was described as a white man, the police would have issued it but senior police commanders are terrified of the Woke people calling them racist for assuming it was a black man.
Its not really going to help identify the bloke though is it? Presumably he could have changed his clothes, and then all you have is black man 20-25. What use is that to anyone?
They have CCTV videos of him.
Believe it or not all black people don't look the same.
They do, on evidence from this year alone, to the pictures editors of the guardian BBC and evening standard.
I'm afraid to say I think this is the start of the second wave. I cannot say I am especially surprised.
I still hope this is just temporary.
Though hospitalisation and death rates suggest it is more of a second ripple.
Of course the problem could well be that the people who are getting infected at the moment are those for whom it will just be a "dose of the flu" but then they go and infect their older friends and family in the coming months.
Can you still infect people for months? they tell people who have a positive test to lie low for only 14 days.
Do you really think that in 15 days time everybody will be corona virus negative???? Of course the new infections will continue on for at least a couple of months. If the average age starts increasing, then hospitalisations will start increasing,... not tomorrow not next week, but "in the coming months".
Georgia's infection profile come to mind. Their second wave started with a MASSIVE rise in positive cases predominantly in the young, death rates fell even as cases exploded.
Then the second wave deaths started coming and eclipsed the first wave.
They've only had 19 deaths in Georgia. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/georgia/ Unless you mean the state in the US with the same name, that's bound to be higher than the country of Georgia and the population is more than double.
Do you not think it's the responsibility of parents to ensure their children do not go hungry CHB?
Of course a millionaire who gets paid a vast fortune for kicking a ball around would know all about it, wouldn't he?
I know the family and how Marcus started his life.
You really are utterly clueless about what he is like, what he has been through and what he does today to help those who grew up in the same situation he did.
If only a few more millionaires did a fraction of what he has done to help the poor we'd live in a much better world.
What does he do Kurt?
That’s not a sarcastic question or questioning his devotion. I genuinely do not know what he does on a day to day basis to help out poor children.
The problem a few people have (I don’t) is that they see him weighing in on issues like this and wonder what he does which shows he is willing to put the hard graft in to support a cause rather than post a few tweets.
If people knew about his actions, I suspect they would be more sympathetic.
To be honest I do not know the detail.
I just know a lot of families in Wythenshawe and that area have benefited from his support, either through direct intervention or his influence on retailers to help poorer families.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
Do you not think it's the responsibility of parents to ensure their children do not go hungry CHB?
Of course a millionaire who gets paid a vast fortune for kicking a ball around would know all about it, wouldn't he?
Well of course all premiership footballers went to Eton, not. I bet nine out of ten of them have more life experience than most of the cabinet.
Putting aside Rashford, actually most these days most footballers have a very distant / abnormal lives. Every part of their lives is organized for them, from all their meals to clothes, travel, etc etc etc. Listen to Peter Crouch explain how weird it is now he isnt a pro, he is very open that he used to turn up with just a wash bag as everything else was going to be just there for him & taken time to adjust to the fact that isnt real life.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
Turnout is irrelevant. If you don't vote, you don't get a say and don't get to complain.
If Scottish voters wanted to say no to a second referendum they could vote for a unionist party. If they choose to sit out the election when they know one party is seeking a second referendum they have no right to complain if the victor implements its manifesto.
Do you not think it's the responsibility of parents to ensure their children do not go hungry CHB?
Of course a millionaire who gets paid a vast fortune for kicking a ball around would know all about it, wouldn't he?
Well of course all premiership footballers went to Eton, not. I bet nine out of ten of them have more life experience than most of the cabinet.
Marcus is a fine example of someone making good but not forgetting their roots
I would just say however that his performances on the field have been poor since he became a campaigner, but hopefully they will improve with the new season
Do you not think it's the responsibility of parents to ensure their children do not go hungry CHB?
Of course a millionaire who gets paid a vast fortune for kicking a ball around would know all about it, wouldn't he?
Well of course all premiership footballers went to Eton, not. I bet nine out of ten of them have more life experience than most of the cabinet.
Putting aside Rashford, actually most these days most footballers have a very distant / abnormal lives. Every part of their lives is organized for them, from all their meals to clothes, travel, etc etc etc. Listen to Peter Crouch explain how weird it is now he isnt a pro, he is very open that he used to turn up with just a wash bag as everything else was going to be just there for him & taken time to adjust to the fact that isnt real life.
Marcus for SPOTY must be a given in 2020 a year of no sport.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
We're not Sweden, Sweden is much more socially distanced than we are.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
If only someone on here had forecast this... but unfortunately selfish Brits will take holidays to the Mediterranean and Aegean.
If only someone had forecast that the wearing of masks in shops and the subsequent reduction in social distancing and increase in the touching of your face would lead to more positive cases.
Typical bollocks, it’s because people aren’t obeying the rules that these numbers are increasing, obey the rules to the letter and there will be few problems.
Do you not think it's the responsibility of parents to ensure their children do not go hungry CHB?
Of course a millionaire who gets paid a vast fortune for kicking a ball around would know all about it, wouldn't he?
Well of course all premiership footballers went to Eton, not. I bet nine out of ten of them have more life experience than most of the cabinet.
Some might have come from poor families and recall their childhood but people who play in the Premier League won't have known any hardship in their adult lives.
My police officer friend says that they only do that when they are desperate. Not good.
If that's true, makes the plod early statement appearing to rule out a load of motivations look a bit silly now.
I am always shocked by how crap CCTV footage still is, in this day and age when everybody carries around a camera in their pocket that can do 4k.
Sensor size, CCTV cameras have tiny sensors which means poor high ISO footage.
Why? Cost? Surely these days all camera sensors are dirt cheap in the grand scheme of things? Just seems crazy to me that such piss poor quality cameras are sold for a job where being able to identify individuals is key, especially when we know the tech exists (rather than back in the day when home camcorders were equally poor).
CCTV cameras get replaced/upgraded rather less frequently than our mobiles. The current SOTA is actually quite good.
Georgia's infection profile come to mind. Their second wave started with a MASSIVE rise in positive cases predominantly in the young, death rates fell even as cases exploded.
Then the second wave deaths started coming and eclipsed the first wave.
They've only had 19 deaths in Georgia. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/georgia/ Unless you mean the state in the US with the same name, that's bound to be higher than the country of Georgia and the population is more than double.
Yes he meant the US state georgia. Te comparison between the country called Georgia and the State called Georgia, is totally irrelevant.
Do you not think it's the responsibility of parents to ensure their children do not go hungry CHB?
Of course a millionaire who gets paid a vast fortune for kicking a ball around would know all about it, wouldn't he?
Well of course all premiership footballers went to Eton, not. I bet nine out of ten of them have more life experience than most of the cabinet.
Putting aside Rashford, actually most these days most footballers have a very distant / abnormal lives. Every part of their lives is organized for them, from all their meals to clothes, travel, etc etc etc. Listen to Peter Crouch explain how weird it is now he isnt a pro, he is very open that he used to turn up with just a wash bag as everything else was going to be just there for him & taken time to adjust to the fact that isnt real life.
Marcus for SPOTY must be a given in 2020 a year of no sport.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
We're not Sweden, Sweden is much more socially distanced than we are.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
Did I say we were?
Personally, I think it was bonkers to allow foreign summer holidays.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
We're not Sweden, Sweden is much more socially distanced than we are.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
I have a feeling we're going to be close to a vaccine for quite a long time.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
Not as though their economy is peachy. Given the outcomes neither we nor they have much advice to give.
If only someone on here had forecast this... but unfortunately selfish Brits will take holidays to the Mediterranean and Aegean.
If only someone had forecast that the wearing of masks in shops and the subsequent reduction in social distancing and increase in the touching of your face would lead to more positive cases.
Typical bollocks, it’s because people aren’t obeying the rules that these numbers are increasing, obey the rules to the letter and there will be few problems.
According to the logic of Ms Hughes, had there been no rules about wearing masks in the first place then no-one would have broken the rules!
Do you not think it's the responsibility of parents to ensure their children do not go hungry CHB?
Of course a millionaire who gets paid a vast fortune for kicking a ball around would know all about it, wouldn't he?
Well of course all premiership footballers went to Eton, not. I bet nine out of ten of them have more life experience than most of the cabinet.
Putting aside Rashford, actually most these days most footballers have a very distant / abnormal lives. Every part of their lives is organized for them, from all their meals to clothes, travel, etc etc etc. Listen to Peter Crouch explain how weird it is now he isnt a pro, he is very open that he used to turn up with just a wash bag as everything else was going to be just there for him & taken time to adjust to the fact that isnt real life.
That starts about 14 for the really talented but most learned their skills in the street or local park
Georgia's infection profile come to mind. Their second wave started with a MASSIVE rise in positive cases predominantly in the young, death rates fell even as cases exploded.
Then the second wave deaths started coming and eclipsed the first wave.
They've only had 19 deaths in Georgia. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/georgia/ Unless you mean the state in the US with the same name, that's bound to be higher than the country of Georgia and the population is more than double.
When most people in the west say Georgia they mean the US State not the country.
Georgia has had over 6,000 deaths so far, the vast majority of which came in its second wave.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
We're not Sweden, Sweden is much more socially distanced than we are.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
I have a feeling we're going to be close to a vaccine for quite a long time.
Oxford are in Phase III trials. We will know in a couple of months whether those trials were successful or a failure.
The stage of where vaccine trials are up to is in the public domain, its not some state secret.
Do you not think it's the responsibility of parents to ensure their children do not go hungry CHB?
Of course a millionaire who gets paid a vast fortune for kicking a ball around would know all about it, wouldn't he?
Well of course all premiership footballers went to Eton, not. I bet nine out of ten of them have more life experience than most of the cabinet.
Putting aside Rashford, actually most these days most footballers have a very distant / abnormal lives. Every part of their lives is organized for them, from all their meals to clothes, travel, etc etc etc. Listen to Peter Crouch explain how weird it is now he isnt a pro, he is very open that he used to turn up with just a wash bag as everything else was going to be just there for him & taken time to adjust to the fact that isnt real life.
That starts about 14 for the really talented but most learned their skills in the street or local park
Not these days they don't. They are signed up at very young ages. My neighbours kid signed at 11 to academy and another friends kid got approached at 8 to try out, but their kid didn't like it. Both have basically only played organized club football.
The one that signed get all the kit, medical care, etc etc etc. Its 3 days a week of training and they aren't allowed to play for their school or a "normal" club.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
We're not Sweden, Sweden is much more socially distanced than we are.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
Sweden now has one of the lowest Covid death rates in Europe
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing one it will give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
We're not Sweden, Sweden is much more socially distanced than we are.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
Sweden now has one of the lowest Covid death rates in Europe
Not quite, only Belgium, Spain, us and Italy have a higher Covid death rate in Europe than Sweden
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence and ignored Gandhi's 'Quit India' campaign begun in 1942, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen in 1948 and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Do you not think it's the responsibility of parents to ensure their children do not go hungry CHB?
Of course a millionaire who gets paid a vast fortune for kicking a ball around would know all about it, wouldn't he?
Well of course all premiership footballers went to Eton, not. I bet nine out of ten of them have more life experience than most of the cabinet.
Putting aside Rashford, actually most these days most footballers have a very distant / abnormal lives. Every part of their lives is organized for them, from all their meals to clothes, travel, etc etc etc. Listen to Peter Crouch explain how weird it is now he isnt a pro, he is very open that he used to turn up with just a wash bag as everything else was going to be just there for him & taken time to adjust to the fact that isnt real life.
Marcus for SPOTY must be a given in 2020 a year of no sport.
"Meandering" is such an odd word to use. He's walking out of Church and through the graveyard I believe his son is buried in. Someone shouts across the graveyard and he waves at them.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
"The Tories under Churchill"
Are you talking about during WWII? Seriously, you think Britain would have granted independence during World War II?
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
We're not Sweden, Sweden is much more socially distanced than we are.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
Sweden now has one of the lowest Covid death rates in Europe
Not quite, only Belgium, Spain, us and Italy have a higher Covid death rate in Europe than Sweden
Is that true? My bad, I did not check
A close relative who is very well-informed on Covid gave me that factoid. I presumed he was right, as he normally is. Perhaps he meant some specific metric of death rates.
Do you not think it's the responsibility of parents to ensure their children do not go hungry CHB?
Of course a millionaire who gets paid a vast fortune for kicking a ball around would know all about it, wouldn't he?
Well of course all premiership footballers went to Eton, not. I bet nine out of ten of them have more life experience than most of the cabinet.
Putting aside Rashford, actually most these days most footballers have a very distant / abnormal lives. Every part of their lives is organized for them, from all their meals to clothes, travel, etc etc etc. Listen to Peter Crouch explain how weird it is now he isnt a pro, he is very open that he used to turn up with just a wash bag as everything else was going to be just there for him & taken time to adjust to the fact that isnt real life.
That starts about 14 for the really talented but most learned their skills in the street or local park
Not these days they don't. They are signed up at very young ages. My neighbours kid signed at 11 to academy and another friends kid got approached at 8 to try out, but their kid didn't like it. Both have basically only played organized club football.
The one that signed get all the kit, medical care, etc etc etc. Its 3 days a week of training and they aren't allowed to play for their school or a "normal" club.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing one it will give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
If we are on WTO terms Brexit there is a high chance of a Yes vote, Boris knows if he goes to WTO terms the price is saying no to Sturgeon no matter what the cost.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Have we seen any plans for how the vaccine will be rolled out? Who is responsible for the plan? Are the promotional videos ready to convince the vaccine deniers? Are the necessary feedback loops ready to report side effects etc and dozens of other issues. It would be nice to know
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Maybe we can just get rid of expensive elections and parliament now we've got 22 year old footballers to decide everything for us.
Are you implying 22 year old footballers should not make political statements?
They can do what they like.
Maybe it shouldn't be top story on the BBC website every time though.
Agreed, and whilst it's quite clear that the majority of parents put their children's wellbeing above all else, it's also clear that more than a few don't. Rashford's clearly passionate about this issue, and good for him, but he needs to be careful to ensure that he does not try to "exonerate" all parents from responsibility for their situation.
Do you not think it's the responsibility of parents to ensure their children do not go hungry CHB?
Of course a millionaire who gets paid a vast fortune for kicking a ball around would know all about it, wouldn't he?
Well of course all premiership footballers went to Eton, not. I bet nine out of ten of them have more life experience than most of the cabinet.
Putting aside Rashford, actually most these days most footballers have a very distant / abnormal lives. Every part of their lives is organized for them, from all their meals to clothes, travel, etc etc etc. Listen to Peter Crouch explain how weird it is now he isnt a pro, he is very open that he used to turn up with just a wash bag as everything else was going to be just there for him & taken time to adjust to the fact that isnt real life.
That starts about 14 for the really talented but most learned their skills in the street or local park
Not these days they don't. They are signed up at very young ages. My neighbours kid signed at 11 to academy and another friends kid got approached at 8 to try out, but their kid didn't like it. Both have basically only played organized club football.
The one that signed get all the kit, medical care, etc etc etc. Its 3 days a week of training and they aren't allowed to play for their school or a "normal" club.
Rashford apparently joined Man Utd academy at 7.
My niece got her first United contract at the age of about 9.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Have we seen any plans for how the vaccine will be rolled out? Who is responsible for the plan? Are the promotional videos ready to convince the vaccine deniers? Are the necessary feedback loops ready to report side effects etc and dozens of other issues. It would be nice to know
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
We're not Sweden, Sweden is much more socially distanced than we are.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
Sweden now has one of the lowest Covid death rates in Europe
Not quite, only Belgium, Spain, us and Italy have a higher Covid death rate in Europe than Sweden
Is that true? My bad, I did not check
A close relative who is very well-informed on Covid gave me that factoid. I presumed he was right, as he normally is. Perhaps he meant some specific metric of death rates.
Deaths per million in Nordic countries:
Iceland 28.3 Norway 49.7 Finland 60.9 Denmark 108.2 Sweden 573.0
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 0.001%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Well if cases are rising, at least that means plenty more opportunity for testing all these vaccines, when the concern a couple of weeks ago was there might not be enough community transmission to make any trials valid!
Maybe we can just get rid of expensive elections and parliament now we've got 22 year old footballers to decide everything for us.
Are you implying 22 year old footballers should not make political statements?
They can do what they like.
Maybe it shouldn't be top story on the BBC website every time though.
If the Government had been on their oats, they would have gently put him in his place the first time. As I said at the time, they should not have agreed to extend the meal coupons through the summer holiday solely at the taxpayers' expense, but should have agreed to 'match fund' anything that could be raised by Rashford and his friends. That would have put the focus straight back on to high paid footballers, where it would have remained, every time that Rashford asked for something else. That's the Government's fault, not Rashfords - you can't blame him for asking.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Well hats off to them if they come up with an effective vaccine quickly.
The heart problems don't sound so good, but they didn't mention the amount of people that had similar heart problems in the control group, so hard to deduce what effect having COVID has on that exactly.
It could just be the effect of poor diet and obesity in the general population and it's only getting picked up as they are just testing COVID patients.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing one it will give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
If we are on WTO terms Brexit there is a high chance of a Yes vote, Boris knows if he goes to WTO terms the price is saying no to Sturgeon no matter what the cost.
We have a government that simply fails to anticipate the consequences of its actions.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
I seemed to remember reading that they are will make a public announcement on early results in about the next 3 weeks.
Unless that was announced by them I'd take that with salt.
Trump and his supporters want there to be an announcement in October. The companies involved will not rush this though, if they did cut corners and something went wrong it would be a major boon to the antivax crazies.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
We're not Sweden, Sweden is much more socially distanced than we are.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
Sweden now has one of the lowest Covid death rates in Europe
Not quite, only Belgium, Spain, us and Italy have a higher Covid death rate in Europe than Sweden
Is that true? My bad, I did not check
A close relative who is very well-informed on Covid gave me that factoid. I presumed he was right, as he normally is. Perhaps he meant some specific metric of death rates.
On deaths per million population and ignoring really small countries such as San Marino and Andorra, yes that's right. At the moment only Belgium, Peru and Spain are higher than us, but we will get overtaken by quite a few other counties including probably Sweden if present trends continue.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
I seemed to remember reading that they are will make a public announcement on early results in about the next 3 weeks.
Unless that was announced by them I'd take that with salt.
Trump and his supporters want there to be an announcement in October. The companies involved will not rush this though, if they did cut corners and something went wrong it would be a major boon to the antivax crazies.
Sarah Gilbert....
Oxford's Professor Sarah Gilbert, the brains behind the jab, said preliminary data from trials in these countries could be expected in the coming weeks.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Not necessarily. If the polls swing conclusvely behind No (unlikely, but not impossible) Boris might be tempted. But in the circs of Sturgeon winning a big majority at Holyrood it is very probable polls will also be pointing to YES, in which case Boris will boot it into the long grass via some "negotiations"
Agreed but the chances of a big No lead on WTO terms Brexit are about 000.1%.
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Your two paragraphs don't make sense.
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
"The Tories under Churchill"
Are you talking about during WWII? Seriously, you think Britain would have granted independence during World War II?
Maybe we can just get rid of expensive elections and parliament now we've got 22 year old footballers to decide everything for us.
Are you implying 22 year old footballers should not make political statements?
They can do what they like.
Maybe it shouldn't be top story on the BBC website every time though.
If the Government had been on their oats, they would have gently put him in his place the first time. As I said at the time, they should not have agreed to extend the meal coupons through the summer holiday solely at the taxpayers' expense, but should have agreed to 'match fund' anything that could be raised by Rashford and his friends. That would have put the focus straight back on to high paid footballers, where it would have remained, every time that Rashford asked for something else. That's the Government's fault, not Rashfords - you can't blame him for asking.
Yes or they should have ignored him completely.
I noticed all this happened with Rashford after he signed to the Roc Nation agency which describes itself as a "movement" and pushes celebrities into social justice campaigns.
It's a way of boosting his image which will earn him £££s in endorsements and sponsorship deals. I doubt he came up with any of these ideas himself at all.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Well hats off to them if they come up with an effective vaccine quickly.
The heart problems don't sound so good, but they didn't mention the amount of people that had similar heart problems in the control group, so hard to deduce what effect having COVID has on that exactly.
It could just be the effect of poor diet and obesity in the general population and it's only getting picked up as they are just testing COVID patients.
The people in question were professional and college athletes, so it's unlikely obesity was the issue!
More seriously, there are three or four vaccines that stand a real chance of mass roll-out by the end of Q1 of next year. Oxford/AZN is leading the charge, Pfizer looks like they might beat Moderna for second (and their vaccines is *extremely* easy to manufacture, so it would be amazing if it worked). And the Novavax and a few others are also in Phase 3 trials.
The UK government - who I rarely praise - managed to secure 100 million doses of the Oxford/AZN vaccine for delivery before the end of the year, and so it is entirely possible that the UK will be the first country to get widespread vaccinations.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Well hats off to them if they come up with an effective vaccine quickly.
The heart problems don't sound so good, but they didn't mention the amount of people that had similar heart problems in the control group, so hard to deduce what effect having COVID has on that exactly.
It could just be the effect of poor diet and obesity in the general population and it's only getting picked up as they are just testing COVID patients.
The people in question were professional and college athletes, so it's unlikely obesity was the issue!
More seriously, there are three or four vaccines that stand a real chance of mass roll-out by the end of Q1 of next year. Oxford/AZN is leading the charge, Pfizer looks like they might beat Moderna for second (and their vaccines is *extremely* easy to manufacture, so it would be amazing if it worked). And the Novavax and a few others are also in Phase 3 trials.
The UK government - who I rarely praise - managed to secure 100 million doses of the Oxford/AZN vaccine for delivery before the end of the year, and so it is entirely possible that the UK will be the first country to get widespread vaccinations.
You mean you don't believe the Russian's have it cracked?
What about the Chinese? I thought they were basically as far a long as the Oxford vaccine trials, if not further?
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Have we seen any plans for how the vaccine will be rolled out? Who is responsible for the plan? Are the promotional videos ready to convince the vaccine deniers? Are the necessary feedback loops ready to report side effects etc and dozens of other issues. It would be nice to know
Have they done all that in Spain?
I’ve not seen anything, they are participating in one of the other potential vaccine trials. There is no evidence that people believe a vaccine is round the corner. The big issue is the return to school and university tomorrow
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
It is pretty evident that our second ripple is being driven by international travel. Which makes the government’s contention that quarantine for international travelers in April May etc look even more ridiculous than it did at the time when we were being told it was making no difference.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
I seemed to remember reading that they are will make a public announcement on early results in about the next 3 weeks.
Intriguingly, the AstraZeneca CEO is doing an investor call tomorrow. That's reasonably unusual - normally companies only do CEO calls when they have quarterly or annual results. Of course, he'll probably just say that "early results are encouraging", but he may have more to say.
It is pretty evident that our second ripple is being driven by international travel. Which makes the government’s contention that quarantine for international travelers in April May etc look even more ridiculous than it did at the time when we were being told it was making no difference.
The every changing air-bridge idea was particularly stupid. By the time you realise there is a problem in a country it is already too late, and people are either not going to keep up with which are on the list or not, or just not adhere to the rules when they come back if it means missing another 2 weeks of work (unpaid).
Do you not think it's the responsibility of parents to ensure their children do not go hungry CHB?
Of course a millionaire who gets paid a vast fortune for kicking a ball around would know all about it, wouldn't he?
I know the family and how Marcus started his life.
You really are utterly clueless about what he is like, what he has been through and what he does today to help those who grew up in the same situation he did.
If only a few more millionaires did a fraction of what he has done to help the poor we'd live in a much better world.
What does he do Kurt?
That’s not a sarcastic question or questioning his devotion. I genuinely do not know what he does on a day to day basis to help out poor children.
The problem a few people have (I don’t) is that they see him weighing in on issues like this and wonder what he does which shows he is willing to put the hard graft in to support a cause rather than post a few tweets.
If people knew about his actions, I suspect they would be more sympathetic.
Maybe we can just get rid of expensive elections and parliament now we've got 22 year old footballers to decide everything for us.
Are you implying 22 year old footballers should not make political statements?
They can do what they like.
Maybe it shouldn't be top story on the BBC website every time though.
If the Government had been on their oats, they would have gently put him in his place the first time. As I said at the time, they should not have agreed to extend the meal coupons through the summer holiday solely at the taxpayers' expense, but should have agreed to 'match fund' anything that could be raised by Rashford and his friends. That would have put the focus straight back on to high paid footballers, where it would have remained, every time that Rashford asked for something else. That's the Government's fault, not Rashfords - you can't blame him for asking.
Yes or they should have ignored him completely.
I noticed all this happened with Rashford after he signed to the Roc Nation agency which describes itself as a "movement" and pushes celebrities into social justice campaigns.
It's a way of boosting his image which will earn him £££s in endorsements and sponsorship deals. I doubt he came up with any of these ideas himself at all.
Ha! I didn't know that, but I said at the time it felt like all this was happening (including the Government folding) to give birth to some sort of crossover career for Rashford. It's unbelievable I know, but Jay Z moves in very powerful circles. Oh well. I suspect that they'll all get a rather big comeuppance in the fullness of time.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Well hats off to them if they come up with an effective vaccine quickly.
The heart problems don't sound so good, but they didn't mention the amount of people that had similar heart problems in the control group, so hard to deduce what effect having COVID has on that exactly.
It could just be the effect of poor diet and obesity in the general population and it's only getting picked up as they are just testing COVID patients.
The people in question were professional and college athletes, so it's unlikely obesity was the issue!
More seriously, there are three or four vaccines that stand a real chance of mass roll-out by the end of Q1 of next year. Oxford/AZN is leading the charge, Pfizer looks like they might beat Moderna for second (and their vaccines is *extremely* easy to manufacture, so it would be amazing if it worked). And the Novavax and a few others are also in Phase 3 trials.
The UK government - who I rarely praise - managed to secure 100 million doses of the Oxford/AZN vaccine for delivery before the end of the year, and so it is entirely possible that the UK will be the first country to get widespread vaccinations.
According to that link the median age is 49, so I guess professional athletes have a higher longevity in Germany than over here.
Being the paranoid type I think I'd prefer we were the 4th or 5th country to get the vaccine, but fair play to the government for being first on the list.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Well hats off to them if they come up with an effective vaccine quickly.
The heart problems don't sound so good, but they didn't mention the amount of people that had similar heart problems in the control group, so hard to deduce what effect having COVID has on that exactly.
It could just be the effect of poor diet and obesity in the general population and it's only getting picked up as they are just testing COVID patients.
The people in question were professional and college athletes, so it's unlikely obesity was the issue!
More seriously, there are three or four vaccines that stand a real chance of mass roll-out by the end of Q1 of next year. Oxford/AZN is leading the charge, Pfizer looks like they might beat Moderna for second (and their vaccines is *extremely* easy to manufacture, so it would be amazing if it worked). And the Novavax and a few others are also in Phase 3 trials.
The UK government - who I rarely praise - managed to secure 100 million doses of the Oxford/AZN vaccine for delivery before the end of the year, and so it is entirely possible that the UK will be the first country to get widespread vaccinations.
You mean you don't believe the Russian's have it cracked?
What about the Chinese? I thought they were basically as far a long as the Oxford vaccine trials, if not further?
The Russian vaccine actually looks OK. It's not really released, mind, they've just rebranded Phase 3 as released.
I should have said "Western" at the top, because I think it's highly unlikely the Chinese vaccines will make it to the West in the near term.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
We're not Sweden, Sweden is much more socially distanced than we are.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
Sweden now has one of the lowest Covid death rates in Europe
Not quite, only Belgium, Spain, us and Italy have a higher Covid death rate in Europe than Sweden
Is that true? My bad, I did not check
A close relative who is very well-informed on Covid gave me that factoid. I presumed he was right, as he normally is. Perhaps he meant some specific metric of death rates.
On deaths per million population and ignoring really small countries such as San Marino and Andorra, yes that's right. At the moment only Belgium, Peru and Spain are higher than us, but we will get overtaken by quite a few other counties including probably Sweden if present trends continue.
It’s remarkable how our death rate has collapsed now that we are not including anyone who has ever had Covid, no matter how they died. I wonder where we would be if our “death rate” was “corrected” retrospectively.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
I seemed to remember reading that they are will make a public announcement on early results in about the next 3 weeks.
Unless that was announced by them I'd take that with salt.
Trump and his supporters want there to be an announcement in October. The companies involved will not rush this though, if they did cut corners and something went wrong it would be a major boon to the antivax crazies.
Sarah Gilbert....
Oxford's Professor Sarah Gilbert, the brains behind the jab, said preliminary data from trials in these countries could be expected in the coming weeks.
Thanks that is great news. Yes I definitely trust any news coming from her, she absolutely is one I trust. Though its preliminary data only, but still great news.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Well hats off to them if they come up with an effective vaccine quickly.
The heart problems don't sound so good, but they didn't mention the amount of people that had similar heart problems in the control group, so hard to deduce what effect having COVID has on that exactly.
It could just be the effect of poor diet and obesity in the general population and it's only getting picked up as they are just testing COVID patients.
The people in question were professional and college athletes, so it's unlikely obesity was the issue!
More seriously, there are three or four vaccines that stand a real chance of mass roll-out by the end of Q1 of next year. Oxford/AZN is leading the charge, Pfizer looks like they might beat Moderna for second (and their vaccines is *extremely* easy to manufacture, so it would be amazing if it worked). And the Novavax and a few others are also in Phase 3 trials.
The UK government - who I rarely praise - managed to secure 100 million doses of the Oxford/AZN vaccine for delivery before the end of the year, and so it is entirely possible that the UK will be the first country to get widespread vaccinations.
You mean you don't believe the Russian's have it cracked?
What about the Chinese? I thought they were basically as far a long as the Oxford vaccine trials, if not further?
The Russian vaccine actually looks OK. It's not really released, mind, they've just rebranded Phase 3 as released.
I should have said "Western" at the top, because I think it's highly unlikely the Chinese vaccines will make it to the West in the near term.
My understanding is that the Russian vaccine has been tested on literally 10s of individuals, and it wasn't double blind placebo trial either.
You don't think the Chinese would be dead keen to flog their vaccine to the rest of the world, massive PR win for the Party.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
Turnout is irrelevant. If you don't vote, you don't get a say and don't get to complain.
If Scottish voters wanted to say no to a second referendum they could vote for a unionist party. If they choose to sit out the election when they know one party is seeking a second referendum they have no right to complain if the victor implements its manifesto.
Turnout is relevant as an indicator of the importance attached by voters to a particular election. Far fewer people vote at Local Elections compared with a General Election and provides evidence that local authorities and the issues they deal with are not viewed as having anything like the importance as those which concern central government at Westminster. A low turnout for Holyrood would hardly be a sign of the Scottish electorate having a burning desire to express a view on the issue which happens to be so important to the SNP. If turnout is circa 50% and the SNP manages a vote share of 50% , that would amount to no more than 25% of the Scotland electorate - before taking account of the reality that many will have voted SNP for reasons totally unrelated to Independence. That would not strike me as a ringing mandate for another Referendum anytime soon.
Maybe we can just get rid of expensive elections and parliament now we've got 22 year old footballers to decide everything for us.
Are you implying 22 year old footballers should not make political statements?
They can do what they like.
Maybe it shouldn't be top story on the BBC website every time though.
If the Government had been on their oats, they would have gently put him in his place the first time. As I said at the time, they should not have agreed to extend the meal coupons through the summer holiday solely at the taxpayers' expense, but should have agreed to 'match fund' anything that could be raised by Rashford and his friends. That would have put the focus straight back on to high paid footballers, where it would have remained, every time that Rashford asked for something else. That's the Government's fault, not Rashfords - you can't blame him for asking.
Yes or they should have ignored him completely.
I noticed all this happened with Rashford after he signed to the Roc Nation agency which describes itself as a "movement" and pushes celebrities into social justice campaigns.
It's a way of boosting his image which will earn him £££s in endorsements and sponsorship deals. I doubt he came up with any of these ideas himself at all.
Ha! I didn't know that, but I said at the time it felt like all this was happening (including the Government folding) to give birth to some sort of crossover career for Rashford. It's unbelievable I know, but Jay Z moves in very powerful circles. Oh well. I suspect that they'll all get a rather big comeuppance in the fullness of time.
He's worked out that he's good, but not a top tier footballer, so he's going down the social justice route to make more money.
You can't really blame him, but you can blame the useless morons lapping it up as usual such as good old Aunty Beeb.
Maybe we can just get rid of expensive elections and parliament now we've got 22 year old footballers to decide everything for us.
Are you implying 22 year old footballers should not make political statements?
They can do what they like.
Maybe it shouldn't be top story on the BBC website every time though.
If the Government had been on their oats, they would have gently put him in his place the first time. As I said at the time, they should not have agreed to extend the meal coupons through the summer holiday solely at the taxpayers' expense, but should have agreed to 'match fund' anything that could be raised by Rashford and his friends. That would have put the focus straight back on to high paid footballers, where it would have remained, every time that Rashford asked for something else. That's the Government's fault, not Rashfords - you can't blame him for asking.
Yes or they should have ignored him completely.
I noticed all this happened with Rashford after he signed to the Roc Nation agency which describes itself as a "movement" and pushes celebrities into social justice campaigns.
It's a way of boosting his image which will earn him £££s in endorsements and sponsorship deals. I doubt he came up with any of these ideas himself at all.
With all the greatest respect, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Well hats off to them if they come up with an effective vaccine quickly.
The heart problems don't sound so good, but they didn't mention the amount of people that had similar heart problems in the control group, so hard to deduce what effect having COVID has on that exactly.
It could just be the effect of poor diet and obesity in the general population and it's only getting picked up as they are just testing COVID patients.
The people in question were professional and college athletes, so it's unlikely obesity was the issue!
More seriously, there are three or four vaccines that stand a real chance of mass roll-out by the end of Q1 of next year. Oxford/AZN is leading the charge, Pfizer looks like they might beat Moderna for second (and their vaccines is *extremely* easy to manufacture, so it would be amazing if it worked). And the Novavax and a few others are also in Phase 3 trials.
The UK government - who I rarely praise - managed to secure 100 million doses of the Oxford/AZN vaccine for delivery before the end of the year, and so it is entirely possible that the UK will be the first country to get widespread vaccinations.
You mean you don't believe the Russian's have it cracked?
What about the Chinese? I thought they were basically as far a long as the Oxford vaccine trials, if not further?
The Russian vaccine actually looks OK. It's not really released, mind, they've just rebranded Phase 3 as released.
I should have said "Western" at the top, because I think it's highly unlikely the Chinese vaccines will make it to the West in the near term.
My understanding is that the Russian vaccine has been tested on literally 10s of individuals, and it wasn't double blind placebo trial either.
You don't think the Chinese would be dead keen to flog their vaccine to the rest of the world, massive PR win for the Party.
Just to let everyone know, I had the Russian Covid-19 vaccination yesterday and can tell you there are absolutely no negative sideffski efectovski secundariosvki Кто может это прочитать Обожаю Владимира Путина!
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
The scale of economic incompetence on the part of the SNP has made Westminster look good. But the 30 minute a day party politicals are still boosting Nicola. It’s deeply frustrating but there are quite a few months to May.
Maybe we can just get rid of expensive elections and parliament now we've got 22 year old footballers to decide everything for us.
Are you implying 22 year old footballers should not make political statements?
They can do what they like.
Maybe it shouldn't be top story on the BBC website every time though.
If the Government had been on their oats, they would have gently put him in his place the first time. As I said at the time, they should not have agreed to extend the meal coupons through the summer holiday solely at the taxpayers' expense, but should have agreed to 'match fund' anything that could be raised by Rashford and his friends. That would have put the focus straight back on to high paid footballers, where it would have remained, every time that Rashford asked for something else. That's the Government's fault, not Rashfords - you can't blame him for asking.
Yes or they should have ignored him completely.
I noticed all this happened with Rashford after he signed to the Roc Nation agency which describes itself as a "movement" and pushes celebrities into social justice campaigns.
It's a way of boosting his image which will earn him £££s in endorsements and sponsorship deals. I doubt he came up with any of these ideas himself at all.
Ha! I didn't know that, but I said at the time it felt like all this was happening (including the Government folding) to give birth to some sort of crossover career for Rashford. It's unbelievable I know, but Jay Z moves in very powerful circles. Oh well. I suspect that they'll all get a rather big comeuppance in the fullness of time.
He's worked out that he's good, but not a top tier footballer, so he's going down the social justice route to make more money.
You can't really blame him, but you can blame the useless morons lapping it up as usual such as good old Aunty Beeb.
Seems you are judging everyone else by your incredible low morale standards.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence and ignored Gandhi's 'Quit India' campaign begun in 1942, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen in 1948
It is pretty evident that our second ripple is being driven by international travel. Which makes the government’s contention that quarantine for international travelers in April May etc look even more ridiculous than it did at the time when we were being told it was making no difference.
I think everyone accepts that in hindsight a quarantine would have been a good idea surely?
But I thought that the reason the government said they didn't introduce one sooner is that by the time it was known they should impose one travel was already down by 99% anyway and the virus was in wide circulation already domestically.
I still think quarantine should have been imposed, but surely in August there's been a lot more international travel than in the months before it? Plus the domestic rates are low again.
...You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever)...
Exactly! Things like putting a border down the Irish Sea have been explicitly ruled out by Boris.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
It is pretty evident that our second ripple is being driven by international travel. Which makes the government’s contention that quarantine for international travelers in April May etc look even more ridiculous than it did at the time when we were being told it was making no difference.
I think everyone accepts that in hindsight a quarantine would have been a good idea surely?
But I thought that the reason the government said they didn't introduce one sooner is that by the time it was known they should impose one travel was already down by 99% anyway and the virus was in wide circulation already domestically.
I still think quarantine should have been imposed, but surely in August there's been a lot more international travel than in the months before it? Plus the domestic rates are low again.
Are there any stats as to the level of compliance with the quarantine regulations?
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
AstraZeneca is due to supply 30 million doses of their ChAdOx1 vaccine to the UK government by the end of September. (As you need two doses, that's good for 15 million people.)
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Well hats off to them if they come up with an effective vaccine quickly.
The heart problems don't sound so good, but they didn't mention the amount of people that had similar heart problems in the control group, so hard to deduce what effect having COVID has on that exactly.
It could just be the effect of poor diet and obesity in the general population and it's only getting picked up as they are just testing COVID patients.
The people in question were professional and college athletes, so it's unlikely obesity was the issue!
More seriously, there are three or four vaccines that stand a real chance of mass roll-out by the end of Q1 of next year. Oxford/AZN is leading the charge, Pfizer looks like they might beat Moderna for second (and their vaccines is *extremely* easy to manufacture, so it would be amazing if it worked). And the Novavax and a few others are also in Phase 3 trials.
The UK government - who I rarely praise - managed to secure 100 million doses of the Oxford/AZN vaccine for delivery before the end of the year, and so it is entirely possible that the UK will be the first country to get widespread vaccinations.
You mean you don't believe the Russian's have it cracked?
What about the Chinese? I thought they were basically as far a long as the Oxford vaccine trials, if not further?
The Russian vaccine actually looks OK. It's not really released, mind, they've just rebranded Phase 3 as released.
I should have said "Western" at the top, because I think it's highly unlikely the Chinese vaccines will make it to the West in the near term.
My understanding is that the Russian vaccine has been tested on literally 10s of individuals, and it wasn't double blind placebo trial either.
You don't think the Chinese would be dead keen to flog their vaccine to the rest of the world, massive PR win for the Party.
The main Chinese vaccines are still a little bit behind Oxford in the trial process, and made the same mistake Moderna made in doing trials in one's home market rather than somewhere where CV19 is rampant.
So while Oxford/AZN started testing in South Africa and Brazil in June, Sinovac only got to Brazil at the end of July, while the Wuhan Institute launched in Morocco and Peru in August, while Sinopharm is in the UAE.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
Turnout is irrelevant. If you don't vote, you don't get a say and don't get to complain.
If Scottish voters wanted to say no to a second referendum they could vote for a unionist party. If they choose to sit out the election when they know one party is seeking a second referendum they have no right to complain if the victor implements its manifesto.
Turnout is relevant as an indicator of the importance attached by voters to a particular election. Far fewer people vote at Local Elections compared with a General Election and provides evidence that local authorities and the issues they deal with are not viewed as having anything like the importance as those which concern central government at Westminster. A low turnout for Holyrood would hardly be a sign of the Scottish electorate having a burning desire to express a view on the issue which happens to be so important to the SNP. If turnout is circa 50% and the SNP manages a vote share of 50% , that would amount to no more than 25% of the Scotland electorate - before taking account of the reality that many will have voted SNP for reasons totally unrelated to Independence. That would not strike me as a ringing mandate for another Referendum anytime soon.
25% wanting a new referendum is a very significant amount and if that 25% wins the election then so be it. That is called democracy.
The other 75% couldn't have cared to stop it, because if they did they would vote for a party that wants to stop it.
Not caring cuts both ways. You can't add people who don't vote to the opposition, they're saying they don't care either way. So the winners are the ones that matter.
If the SNP wins they have the mandate - no ifs, no buts, that is democracy in action. If the SNP loses then the SNP have no mandate. Again democracy.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in denial of the political reality, Big G.
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence and ignored Gandhi's 'Quit India' campaign begun in 1942, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen in 1948 and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State. The Popular Party in Spain who blocked even one Catalan referendum are the Tories sister party. Talks with Catalan nationalists on Catalonia's future have only begun this year now Spain has a Socialist government.
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
An India granted independence mid-WWII would only have been independent until the Japanese troops arrived.
I'm starting to think that lockdown is pointless since as soon as you relax it the virus will be back to April 2020 numbers again in a couple of months.
You can't keep locking down forever, so you'll just have a completely wrecked economy and the same situation in a year or two anyway.
I believe some swedish bloke said this....
We're not Sweden, Sweden is much more socially distanced than we are.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
Sweden now has one of the lowest Covid death rates in Europe
Not quite, only Belgium, Spain, us and Italy have a higher Covid death rate in Europe than Sweden
Is that true? My bad, I did not check
A close relative who is very well-informed on Covid gave me that factoid. I presumed he was right, as he normally is. Perhaps he meant some specific metric of death rates.
On deaths per million population and ignoring really small countries such as San Marino and Andorra, yes that's right. At the moment only Belgium, Peru and Spain are higher than us, but we will get overtaken by quite a few other counties including probably Sweden if present trends continue.
It’s remarkable how our death rate has collapsed now that we are not including anyone who has ever had Covid, no matter how they died. I wonder where we would be if our “death rate” was “corrected” retrospectively.
Our number of excess deaths were - however - horrendous. For a three moth period, about 75% more people were dying than normal. That's a lot of dead people.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Well if Starmer grants indyref2 that is a risk he will have to take, if even EEA and devomax won't save the Union then at that point it is dead, Labour will have lost the Union and the Tories will have gained a larger majority in the remainder of seats at Westminster
Its not a risk he will have to take, it will be what the Scots have voted for. If the Scots vote for a referendum next year, it will be what they have voted for.
What gives you or any English MP the moral right to deny the Scots the right to make the decision themselves?
But if turnout next May is in the region of 50% , it will be clear evidence that the issue is not exciting voters in Scotland in the way the commentariat is inclined to assume. Many will have shown their indifference.
You are in complete denial by the looks of it
You are in hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
Re your last paragraph you sound like HYUFD
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing oneitwill give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
I accept your moral, logical and emotional argument. You are right there will be huge pressure on the Tories to grant a vote, and the pressure will have a persuasive moral case behind it.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
I am very close to Scotland and the Scots having had a near lifetime of association through marriage and actually spending my young years on the border at Berwick and then moving to Edinburgh
There has always been an anti English undercurrent current which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
I agree with much of this, and I know you have strong Scots connections and you know whereof you speak.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
Realistically there is more chance of saving the Union by blocking indyref2 on a WTO terms Brexit then a PM Starmer allowing indyref2 after rejoining the EEA and granting devomax after 2024. If even the latter is not enough then the Union is almost certainly lost anyway but if indyref2 is held while on WTO terms Brexit Yes will almost certainly win as all the polling shows and then there will be tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and Customs Posts from Berwick to Gretna soon after
Comments
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/georgia/
Unless you mean the state in the US with the same name, that's bound to be higher than the country of Georgia and the population is more than double.
I just know a lot of families in Wythenshawe and that area have benefited from his support, either through direct intervention or his influence on retailers to help poorer families.
If Scottish voters wanted to say no to a second referendum they could vote for a unionist party. If they choose to sit out the election when they know one party is seeking a second referendum they have no right to complain if the victor implements its manifesto.
I would just say however that his performances on the field have been poor since he became a campaigner, but hopefully they will improve with the new season
No Tory PM is ever going to allow a referendum on the Union that they seem likely to lose. It would mean instant resignation, for a start, and historic infamy- and the end of the Union, causing an immense recession on both sides of the border (much worse in Scotland). It would guarantee economic and political chaos for half a decade or more. Brexit times a hundred.
All and any kind of politicking will be done to avoid it, Royal Commissions on Devomax etc.
You may say this will stoke Scots grievance and guarantee indy in the end, but if that is almost inevitable, anyway, HMG has nothing to lose by denying a vote and hoping for a miracle.
Also: will it stoke Scottish grievance? Madrid basically invaded Catalunya and locked up all the Catalan leaders, to prevent secession, and yet polls show Catalan independence has not gained in popularity. It is as it was.
The purpose of locking down was so that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed. In that sense it did its job. Furthermore we're close to a vaccine, so the restrictions won't go on forever.
The current SOTA is actually quite good.
Personally, I think it was bonkers to allow foreign summer holidays.
Georgia has had over 6,000 deaths so far, the vast majority of which came in its second wave.
https://tinyurl.com/yyltv8sq
The stage of where vaccine trials are up to is in the public domain, its not some state secret.
The one that signed get all the kit, medical care, etc etc etc. Its 3 days a week of training and they aren't allowed to play for their school or a "normal" club.
Maybe it shouldn't be top story on the BBC website every time though.
Any attempt at anything like that will guarantee independence.
Post next May the SNP will make the governance of Scotland almost impossible for a Boris led government without a referendum and the irony is that by agreeing one it will give the union the best chance of winning
I do expect a drawn out process in agreeing a referendum and I do not expect it before mid summer 2022
If there is to be an indyref2 granted it will be under a Labour government not a Tory one
Scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
That vaccine has been in Phase 3 trials in South Africa and Brazil since about the 20th of June, and the AZN CEO has been saying on investor calls that early results are positive. (Although I'd wait until an official announcement.) It's clearly positive that that haven't had to stop the trial due to excessive immune response, or concerns about side effects.
Given we may be less than five weeks away from the first people in the UK getting vaccinated, and given that there is increasing evidence of long term heart problems from otherwise recovered patients, as well as a host of other persistent health issues, it doesn't seem unreasonable to be a little cautious for a little longer.
But will any UK PM grant a vote they are likely to lose, a vote which - if the polls stay as they are - will destroy their own career, destroy their 300 year old country, and severely damage the economy of all four nations? No. Simply not going to happen.
Are you talking about during WWII? Seriously, you think Britain would have granted independence during World War II?
Attlee became PM before the end of WWII.
A close relative who is very well-informed on Covid gave me that factoid. I presumed he was right, as he normally is. Perhaps he meant some specific metric of death rates.
Iceland 28.3
Norway 49.7
Finland 60.9
Denmark 108.2
Sweden 573.0
Plus granting indyref2 leading to a Yes on WTO terms then Scotland rejoining the EU means customs posts at the Scottish borders and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
The heart problems don't sound so good, but they didn't mention the amount of people that had similar heart problems in the control group, so hard to deduce what effect having COVID has on that exactly.
It could just be the effect of poor diet and obesity in the general population and it's only getting picked up as they are just testing COVID patients.
Trump and his supporters want there to be an announcement in October. The companies involved will not rush this though, if they did cut corners and something went wrong it would be a major boon to the antivax crazies.
At the moment only Belgium, Peru and Spain are higher than us, but we will get overtaken by quite a few other counties including probably Sweden if present trends continue.
Oxford's Professor Sarah Gilbert, the brains behind the jab, said preliminary data from trials in these countries could be expected in the coming weeks.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8684869/AstraZeneca-begins-final-trials-Oxford-University-coronavirus-vaccine-enrolling-50-000-people.html
If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
I noticed all this happened with Rashford after he signed to the Roc Nation agency which describes itself as a "movement" and pushes celebrities into social justice campaigns.
It's a way of boosting his image which will earn him £££s in endorsements and sponsorship deals. I doubt he came up with any of these ideas himself at all.
More seriously, there are three or four vaccines that stand a real chance of mass roll-out by the end of Q1 of next year. Oxford/AZN is leading the charge, Pfizer looks like they might beat Moderna for second (and their vaccines is *extremely* easy to manufacture, so it would be amazing if it worked). And the Novavax and a few others are also in Phase 3 trials.
The UK government - who I rarely praise - managed to secure 100 million doses of the Oxford/AZN vaccine for delivery before the end of the year, and so it is entirely possible that the UK will be the first country to get widespread vaccinations.
What about the Chinese? I thought they were basically as far a long as the Oxford vaccine trials, if not further?
There has always been an anti English undercurrent which I have experienced personally on occasions, even though I am half Welsh, and covid has been a springboard for Scotland to show how they can be different and they want more
Unless covid destroys the SNP economic competence over the next six months expect a solid win next May which will make Boris task of winning the Scots round to the union very difficult and saying no the indy 2 until post 2024 is certain to fracture any cooperation between Westminster and Edinburgh and make the divide near impossible to bridge
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/11878415/marcus-rashford-charity-list-man-utd-stars-generous-acts/
https://thebusbybabe.sbnation.com/2020/4/6/21208920/manchester-united-striker-marcus-rashford-raises-20-million-to-feed-local-school-kids
Being the paranoid type I think I'd prefer we were the 4th or 5th country to get the vaccine, but fair play to the government for being first on the list.
I should have said "Western" at the top, because I think it's highly unlikely the Chinese vaccines will make it to the West in the near term.
You are ignoring the realpolitik for a British PM, however. No Tory leader will agree to a vote which will end the UK (and his career, instantly and forever). And if the vote is likely to be lost, does it matter if it is - theoretically - even likelier to be lost in five years if it is denied now?
Something might just come along and change things. A week is a long time, etc.
Boris will say No and pray to Kali for forgiveness.
You don't think the Chinese would be dead keen to flog their vaccine to the rest of the world, massive PR win for the Party.
You can't really blame him, but you can blame the useless morons lapping it up as usual such as good old Aunty Beeb.
But I thought that the reason the government said they didn't introduce one sooner is that by the time it was known they should impose one travel was already down by 99% anyway and the virus was in wide circulation already domestically.
I still think quarantine should have been imposed, but surely in August there's been a lot more international travel than in the months before it? Plus the domestic rates are low again.
Err.....
Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
The main Chinese vaccines are still a little bit behind Oxford in the trial process, and made the same mistake Moderna made in doing trials in one's home market rather than somewhere where CV19 is rampant.
So while Oxford/AZN started testing in South Africa and Brazil in June, Sinovac only got to Brazil at the end of July, while the Wuhan Institute launched in Morocco and Peru in August, while Sinopharm is in the UAE.
The other 75% couldn't have cared to stop it, because if they did they would vote for a party that wants to stop it.
Not caring cuts both ways. You can't add people who don't vote to the opposition, they're saying they don't care either way. So the winners are the ones that matter.
If the SNP wins they have the mandate - no ifs, no buts, that is democracy in action.
If the SNP loses then the SNP have no mandate. Again democracy.