So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
That is a very very simplistic calculation that is would fall apart rapidly. There is no consideration for population density, age groups, country location etc, and then there is each country's definition of a death due to covid.
It's like those who use Sweden's death rate Vs UK death rate to oppose lockdowns, comparing an apple to a cricket ball.
I don't think the government has handled this very well, certainly when it has come to learning lessons from ourselves or abroad, but using statistics like that reminds me of how an ex orange president liked to do.
Excess deaths is the acknowledged way of comparing.
How do you think we rank in an excess death comparison?
Given the way the vaccine rollout is going, it is entirely possible we move down the excess deaths/total deaths league table as we have highly vaccinated population whilst the EU have enough to vaccinate Luxembourg.
Then I suspect you'll stop mentioning these metrics.
Tricky now, I'd have thought.
Boris's Big Christmas Party has given about 10k extra deaths.
That's a couple of months at 100-200 deaths per day.
10k extra? I'd like to see the working here.
Little more than order of magnitude guesstimation, to be fair. But the contents of my envelope back were roughly:
We're at about 1000 a day now, have been for a week, will be for at least another week. Comparing England with other home nations, about a half of those look like they're Christmas related (from the English rise not happening elsewhere). 14 days x 500 gives 7000, round it up because we won't return to trend immediately.
I'd argue that disentangling the effect of Christmas day from the spread of the new variant is quite challenging. I don't think you can just assert that half of them came from the relaxed restrictions.
Fair point; it's certainly the weakest link in the chain. However, the comparison with other parts of the UK is suggestive, and if those responsible for England had a more relaxed set of restrictions despite knowing that New Improved Covid was around, more fool them.
Were behaviours in the four nations really that different for Christmas day. If I am remembering correctly the differences between the restrictions were not that significant.
The key bit was immediately post-Christmas; England went temporarily back into tiers, the others went into a pre-arranged lockdown.
OK, so it was the restrictions in general weren't tough enough, not what happened on Christmas day?
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
That might be a valid comparison if every country had the same demographics.
That might be a valid comparison if Corbyn was PM
Fixed it for you
PB Tories in its down to our demographics DENIAL
Are you seriously suggesting demographics don't come into it?
Nah, Britain being a global transit hub with a disproportionately elderly and overweight population, many of them crammed into some of the highest-density areas in the world, clearly makes us no different from New Zealand.
I think, for the reasons you highlight, Britain would have had a comparatively high death toll anyway, all the more so due to our ratio-limited health service, and poor arms-length social care system, but Boris has added to the toll by repeatedly prevaricating.
I don't know what that counts for in the end. Possibly 10-20k in numbers?
Considerably more, I think. But the vaccine should claw some back. Although not literally, sadly.
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
Boris should have closed the airports last March.
Point is, March was too late. In feb there were thousands of infections already in the community. Lot of skiing trips etc. We were seeded everywhere, but notably in London. Arguably we should have locked down a week earlier, which I am sure would have saved many lives in the first wave. It’s also clear that we should have kept the nov lockdown on because of new variant and because the cases were still too high.
Also we virtually eliminated deaths in May and June last year despite having no travel restrictions.
All this scapegoating of international travellers is very distasteful, but it's always easier to blame dreaded foreigners than get your own society under control.
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
Boris should have closed the airports last March.
Point is, March was too late. In feb there were thousands of infections already in the community. Lot of skiing trips etc. We were seeded everywhere, but notably in London. Arguably we should have locked down a week earlier, which I am sure would have saved many lives in the first wave. It’s also clear that we should have kept the nov lockdown on because of new variant and because the cases were still too high.
Also we virtually eliminated deaths in May and June last year despite having no travel restrictions.
All this scapegoating of international travellers is very distasteful, but it's always easier to blame dreaded foreigners than get your own society under control.
It's clear that the uptick in Autumn was caused by an imported strain. Had there been no travel we'd probably still be ticking along with few deaths. And the opprobrium is shared by foreigners visiting and Brits returning from holiday equally.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
That might be a valid comparison if every country had the same demographics.
That might be a valid comparison if Corbyn was PM
Fixed it for you
PB Tories in its down to our demographics DENIAL
Are you seriously suggesting demographics don't come into it?
Nah, Britain being a global transit hub with a disproportionately elderly and overweight population, many of them crammed into some of the highest-density areas in the world, clearly makes us no different from New Zealand.
Population density has little to do with it - Taiwan and South Korea are much denser than the UK and they have hardly any deaths, the US and Brazil are much less dense but they have suffered badly. Hong Kong and Singapore are transit hubs with very high population densities, they also have far fewer deaths than the UK.
It's a perfect storm of age, obesety and being a global transport hub. New York State and England are very similar in that respect.
Hmm, UK 18% of the population over 65, South Korea 15%. Not a huge difference there. I'm sure we have more obesity but SK population density is much higher. So are we saying that it all comes down to being a global hub? But what about Hong Kong and Singapore?
No, the UK's poor performance is primarily, though not exclusively, the fault of the government, and the PM in particular.
A bit older (esp over 80), a bit fatter, and lacking the mask-wearing culture seen in Asian countries. These all add up.
Certainly but they do not explain why the UK has almost 100,000 deaths and South Korea has 1300!
Isn't that where they have the ability to track every person so it is trivial to see who you have been in contact with? Not sure that'd go down too well in the UK.
I think if you gave people a choice between having their movements tracked and risking the deaths of themselves or their elderly relatives they would choose the former.
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
That is a very very simplistic calculation that is would fall apart rapidly. There is no consideration for population density, age groups, country location etc, and then there is each country's definition of a death due to covid.
It's like those who use Sweden's death rate Vs UK death rate to oppose lockdowns, comparing an apple to a cricket ball.
I don't think the government has handled this very well, certainly when it has come to learning lessons from ourselves or abroad, but using statistics like that reminds me of how an ex orange president liked to do.
Excess deaths is the acknowledged way of comparing.
How do you think we rank in an excess death comparison?
Given the way the vaccine rollout is going, it is entirely possible we move down the excess deaths/total deaths league table as we have highly vaccinated population whilst the EU have enough to vaccinate Luxembourg.
Then I suspect you'll stop mentioning these metrics.
Tricky now, I'd have thought.
Boris's Big Christmas Party has given about 10k extra deaths.
That's a couple of months at 100-200 deaths per day.
10k extra? I'd like to see the working here.
Little more than order of magnitude guesstimation, to be fair. But the contents of my envelope back were roughly:
We're at about 1000 a day now, have been for a week, will be for at least another week. Comparing England with other home nations, about a half of those look like they're Christmas related (from the English rise not happening elsewhere). 14 days x 500 gives 7000, round it up because we won't return to trend immediately.
I'd argue that disentangling the effect of Christmas day from the spread of the new variant is quite challenging. I don't think you can just assert that half of them came from the relaxed restrictions.
Fair point; it's certainly the weakest link in the chain. However, the comparison with other parts of the UK is suggestive, and if those responsible for England had a more relaxed set of restrictions despite knowing that New Improved Covid was around, more fool them.
Were behaviours in the four nations really that different for Christmas day. If I am remembering correctly the differences between the restrictions were not that significant.
The key bit was immediately post-Christmas; England went temporarily back into tiers, the others went into a pre-arranged lockdown.
OK, so it was the restrictions in general weren't tough enough, not what happened on Christmas day?
I'd put it slightly differently, but not massively so. Governments in other parts of the UK had recognised that Christmas mixing was bound to lead to a spike, and put something in place to squash that straight afterwards. England (so Johnson) waited a week and a bit, with the much bigger resulting spike.
But then Christmas goes on until at least Twelfth Night...
(Besides- whilst my hunch is that 10k is about right, it's a physics estimate, so that means more than 3k, less than 30k.)
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
That might be a valid comparison if every country had the same demographics.
That might be a valid comparison if Corbyn was PM
Fixed it for you
PB Tories in its down to our demographics DENIAL
Are you seriously suggesting demographics don't come into it?
Nah, Britain being a global transit hub with a disproportionately elderly and overweight population, many of them crammed into some of the highest-density areas in the world, clearly makes us no different from New Zealand.
Population density has little to do with it - Taiwan and South Korea are much denser than the UK and they have hardly any deaths, the US and Brazil are much less dense but they have suffered badly. Hong Kong and Singapore are transit hubs with very high population densities, they also have far fewer deaths than the UK.
It's a perfect storm of age, obesety and being a global transport hub. New York State and England are very similar in that respect.
Hmm, UK 18% of the population over 65, South Korea 15%. Not a huge difference there. I'm sure we have more obesity but SK population density is much higher. So are we saying that it all comes down to being a global hub? But what about Hong Kong and Singapore?
No, the UK's poor performance is primarily, though not exclusively, the fault of the government, and the PM in particular.
A bit older (esp over 80), a bit fatter, and lacking the mask-wearing culture seen in Asian countries. These all add up.
Certainly but they do not explain why the UK has almost 100,000 deaths and South Korea has 1300!
Isn't that where they have the ability to track every person so it is trivial to see who you have been in contact with? Not sure that'd go down too well in the UK.
I think if you gave people a choice between having their movements tracked and risking the deaths of themselves or their elderly relatives they would choose the former.
Good luck introducing those schemes in the UK. You can't seriously think they would have got through Parliament, or not been met with widespread disobedience?
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
That is a very very simplistic calculation that is would fall apart rapidly. There is no consideration for population density, age groups, country location etc, and then there is each country's definition of a death due to covid.
It's like those who use Sweden's death rate Vs UK death rate to oppose lockdowns, comparing an apple to a cricket ball.
I don't think the government has handled this very well, certainly when it has come to learning lessons from ourselves or abroad, but using statistics like that reminds me of how an ex orange president liked to do.
Excess deaths is the acknowledged way of comparing.
How do you think we rank in an excess death comparison?
Given the way the vaccine rollout is going, it is entirely possible we move down the excess deaths/total deaths league table as we have highly vaccinated population whilst the EU have enough to vaccinate Luxembourg.
Then I suspect you'll stop mentioning these metrics.
Tricky now, I'd have thought.
Boris's Big Christmas Party has given about 10k extra deaths.
That's a couple of months at 100-200 deaths per day.
10k extra? I'd like to see the working here.
Little more than order of magnitude guesstimation, to be fair. But the contents of my envelope back were roughly:
We're at about 1000 a day now, have been for a week, will be for at least another week. Comparing England with other home nations, about a half of those look like they're Christmas related (from the English rise not happening elsewhere). 14 days x 500 gives 7000, round it up because we won't return to trend immediately.
I'd argue that disentangling the effect of Christmas day from the spread of the new variant is quite challenging. I don't think you can just assert that half of them came from the relaxed restrictions.
Fair point; it's certainly the weakest link in the chain. However, the comparison with other parts of the UK is suggestive, and if those responsible for England had a more relaxed set of restrictions despite knowing that New Improved Covid was around, more fool them.
Were behaviours in the four nations really that different for Christmas day. If I am remembering correctly the differences between the restrictions were not that significant.
The key bit was immediately post-Christmas; England went temporarily back into tiers, the others went into a pre-arranged lockdown.
OK, so it was the restrictions in general weren't tough enough, not what happened on Christmas day?
I'd put it slightly differently, but not massively so. Governments in other parts of the UK had recognised that Christmas mixing was bound to lead to a spike, and put something in place to squash that straight afterwards. England (so Johnson) waited a week and a bit, with the much bigger resulting spike.
But then Christmas goes on until at least Twelfth Night...
(Besides- whilst my hunch is that 10k is about right, it's a physics estimate, so that means more than 3k, less than 30k.)
I don't think you can simply assert the 10k figure is about right, especially with the spread of the new strain. The effect might have been a 5% increase, or 95% increase, but I think it's impossible to say without a more rigorous study.
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
That is a very very simplistic calculation that is would fall apart rapidly. There is no consideration for population density, age groups, country location etc, and then there is each country's definition of a death due to covid.
It's like those who use Sweden's death rate Vs UK death rate to oppose lockdowns, comparing an apple to a cricket ball.
I don't think the government has handled this very well, certainly when it has come to learning lessons from ourselves or abroad, but using statistics like that reminds me of how an ex orange president liked to do.
Excess deaths is the acknowledged way of comparing.
How do you think we rank in an excess death comparison?
Given the way the vaccine rollout is going, it is entirely possible we move down the excess deaths/total deaths league table as we have highly vaccinated population whilst the EU have enough to vaccinate Luxembourg.
Then I suspect you'll stop mentioning these metrics.
Tricky now, I'd have thought.
Boris's Big Christmas Party has given about 10k extra deaths.
That's a couple of months at 100-200 deaths per day.
10k extra? I'd like to see the working here.
Little more than order of magnitude guesstimation, to be fair. But the contents of my envelope back were roughly:
We're at about 1000 a day now, have been for a week, will be for at least another week. Comparing England with other home nations, about a half of those look like they're Christmas related (from the English rise not happening elsewhere). 14 days x 500 gives 7000, round it up because we won't return to trend immediately.
I'd argue that disentangling the effect of Christmas day from the spread of the new variant is quite challenging. I don't think you can just assert that half of them came from the relaxed restrictions.
Fair point; it's certainly the weakest link in the chain. However, the comparison with other parts of the UK is suggestive, and if those responsible for England had a more relaxed set of restrictions despite knowing that New Improved Covid was around, more fool them.
Were behaviours in the four nations really that different for Christmas day. If I am remembering correctly the differences between the restrictions were not that significant.
The key bit was immediately post-Christmas; England went temporarily back into tiers, the others went into a pre-arranged lockdown.
Just before Christmas was important as well. While London and bits of the south east were rightly put into tier 4 the week before, the rest of the country were left in tier 3 or even 2 (i.e. pubs open) until Dec 30, allowing the new variant to take hold there as well. As a result, e.g. Liverpool had a London sized spike of over 1000 cases/week/100,000.
Guernsey COVID cases have gone from 6 (all inbound travel) to 10 (+4 community transmission with one from a school) to 35 (cases in 7 schools) - all schools shut, island in lockdown. It will be interesting to see how transmission is modelled later. Testing capacity is UK equivalent of 1,000,000/day. Samples being sent to UK for genomic sequencing.
Sorry to see these figures for Guernsey. A timely reminder that being an island does not guarantee protection. See Barra for further evidence. Guernsey has done everything right apart from one fatal flaw: relying too heavily on quarantine while continuing to live as normal. If the virus sneaks under the radar it will be all over the island before the tracers get their boots on. Similarly, NZ have an outbreak in Aukland that could prove equally troublesome:
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
No, if the argument becomes a rehash of leave/remain then independence will win on the back of No/Remainers so both sides will want to avoid it in case it doesn't go their way.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
She’s not though?
My understanding was that without a Section 30 order the Scottish law is ultra vires.
She can hold a poll but it wouldn’t have legal standing. I could see she might even get into trouble for spending public money on it although I am sure there will be a way around it.
Just drafting a section 30 notice doesn’t solve anything because it needs to be agreed by the U.K. government as well as the Scottish government
But I’ve not made a close study of it so perhaps someone can explain what I’ve missed?
There is no law stopping the Scottish government having and advisory referendum on any topic.
But equally there is no power vested in the Scottish government vis a vis constitutional matters. They're reserved powers.
Any such poll would surely be boycotted by unionists and ignored, don't you think?
We shall see when challenged in court, UK cannot imprison people, International law does not allow it. We are either in a union or we are a colony, make up your mind. Unusual in a democracy to hold people prisoner against their will.
Remind me the result of the most recent Scottish independence referendum? Scotland decided to stay.
Just because the indies shout louder shouldn't prevent democracy from triumphing, should it?
Or do you think that a vote for independence carries more weight than a vote against it?
Just sounds like sour grapes to me, Malc.
Just as was stated the conditions have changed, we were lied to in 2014 and it clearly said afterwards if conditions changed we would have another vote. That has happened and as will be proved in May , the Scottish people want another vote on it as is their sovereign right. Fact that unionists are scared to have one does not come into it.
Lies about the price of oil?
Or about being able to remain in EU?
About being able to use Sterling?
Not those lies no.
Perhaps Nicola has gone to the expense, trouble and time of procuring blue envelopes to acknowledge the contribution of the Conservative government in London in procuring Scotland's jabs?
Oh dear , tax exile joins the fray with more lies. As you well know we pay dearly for Westminster's debts. we could have saved billions if independent rather than having shysters giving their chums our hard earned money for PPE, meals for hungry children , computers , etc etc. People who support stealing from mouths of hungry children should hang their heads in shame. I know you have none but it is not a nice look.
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
That might be a valid comparison if every country had the same demographics.
That might be a valid comparison if Corbyn was PM
Fixed it for you
PB Tories in its down to our demographics DENIAL
Are you seriously suggesting demographics don't come into it?
Nah, Britain being a global transit hub with a disproportionately elderly and overweight population, many of them crammed into some of the highest-density areas in the world, clearly makes us no different from New Zealand.
Population density has little to do with it - Taiwan and South Korea are much denser than the UK and they have hardly any deaths, the US and Brazil are much less dense but they have suffered badly. Hong Kong and Singapore are transit hubs with very high population densities, they also have far fewer deaths than the UK.
It's a perfect storm of age, obesety and being a global transport hub. New York State and England are very similar in that respect.
Hmm, UK 18% of the population over 65, South Korea 15%. Not a huge difference there. I'm sure we have more obesity but SK population density is much higher. So are we saying that it all comes down to being a global hub? But what about Hong Kong and Singapore?
No, the UK's poor performance is primarily, though not exclusively, the fault of the government, and the PM in particular.
A bit older (esp over 80), a bit fatter, and lacking the mask-wearing culture seen in Asian countries. These all add up.
Certainly but they do not explain why the UK has almost 100,000 deaths and South Korea has 1300!
I thought Patel said it was down to UK having lots of BAME people.
Scotland wildly under-performs in all sorts of social measures.
Off you go!
Ah but you don't want to - you want to still bear allegiance - ok.
You want to use the pound and have some say in it - no.
You want to wipe out all of your share of the national debt - no.
You want to have the EU welcome you with open arms and be even more generous than the UK was - not a chance. You want the EU to let you choose what your currency is - not a chance. You want the EU to let you choose to have a monarch that is part of a foreign trade bloc - tricky. You want the EU to entirely rule out and sub-secession - who knows.
Martin again demonstrating the mystery of why he gets paid the big bucks (I actually assume it's reasonably substantial rather than big, but same applies)
In the UK, Scotland is as important as England; all British citizens are a priority to get vaccinated by the British government.
In the EU, Scotland would be well down the EU28 list, and, to the extent it could get its bureaucracy together to respond to future viral outbreaks, behind the French and German governments, who have their own priorities and would pull the EU's attentions toward them.
"In the UK, Scotland is as important as England" Ha ha, top satirical post.
Scottish and English people have precisely the same rights as British citizens.
Our fellow nationalist posters like to play the victim. They are treated no differently to how I am.
They ARE treated differently. They get more public spending per head.
We don't "spend" the allocation of sovereign debt, depreciation or all of the allocated defence expenditure.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I'm not so sure. Some campaign fudge like promising a post-independence national conversation on the relationship with Europe could square the circle and allow the Eurosceptic Nat voters to go for the primary aim, and worry about blocking reaccession once it's achieved.
Scotland could very easily end up joining the EEA and EFTA. Unlike the UK, its presence wouldn't upset the balance of the latter.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I think they would do well with EEA, as an interim step at least.
Full Single Market Access Control of Fishing grounds No currency commitment
I can see that working, though if I were Scottish would be keen to join the Euro. A currency not constantly being debased is worth having, even if it does require careful fiscal policies, though I would see these as a plus.
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
That is a very very simplistic calculation that is would fall apart rapidly. There is no consideration for population density, age groups, country location etc, and then there is each country's definition of a death due to covid.
It's like those who use Sweden's death rate Vs UK death rate to oppose lockdowns, comparing an apple to a cricket ball.
I don't think the government has handled this very well, certainly when it has come to learning lessons from ourselves or abroad, but using statistics like that reminds me of how an ex orange president liked to do.
Excess deaths is the acknowledged way of comparing.
How do you think we rank in an excess death comparison?
Given the way the vaccine rollout is going, it is entirely possible we move down the excess deaths/total deaths league table as we have highly vaccinated population whilst the EU have enough to vaccinate Luxembourg.
Then I suspect you'll stop mentioning these metrics.
Tricky now, I'd have thought.
Boris's Big Christmas Party has given about 10k extra deaths.
That's a couple of months at 100-200 deaths per day.
10k extra? I'd like to see the working here.
Little more than order of magnitude guesstimation, to be fair. But the contents of my envelope back were roughly:
We're at about 1000 a day now, have been for a week, will be for at least another week. Comparing England with other home nations, about a half of those look like they're Christmas related (from the English rise not happening elsewhere). 14 days x 500 gives 7000, round it up because we won't return to trend immediately.
I'd argue that disentangling the effect of Christmas day from the spread of the new variant is quite challenging. I don't think you can just assert that half of them came from the relaxed restrictions.
Fair point; it's certainly the weakest link in the chain. However, the comparison with other parts of the UK is suggestive, and if those responsible for England had a more relaxed set of restrictions despite knowing that New Improved Covid was around, more fool them.
Were behaviours in the four nations really that different for Christmas day. If I am remembering correctly the differences between the restrictions were not that significant.
The key bit was immediately post-Christmas; England went temporarily back into tiers, the others went into a pre-arranged lockdown.
OK, so it was the restrictions in general weren't tough enough, not what happened on Christmas day?
Both more likely, we had lockdown at midnight on xmas day and limited to one family , max 6 on the day
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
That might be a valid comparison if every country had the same demographics.
That might be a valid comparison if Corbyn was PM
Fixed it for you
PB Tories in its down to our demographics DENIAL
Are you seriously suggesting demographics don't come into it?
Nah, Britain being a global transit hub with a disproportionately elderly and overweight population, many of them crammed into some of the highest-density areas in the world, clearly makes us no different from New Zealand.
Population density has little to do with it - Taiwan and South Korea are much denser than the UK and they have hardly any deaths, the US and Brazil are much less dense but they have suffered badly. Hong Kong and Singapore are transit hubs with very high population densities, they also have far fewer deaths than the UK.
It's a perfect storm of age, obesety and being a global transport hub. New York State and England are very similar in that respect.
Hmm, UK 18% of the population over 65, South Korea 15%. Not a huge difference there. I'm sure we have more obesity but SK population density is much higher. So are we saying that it all comes down to being a global hub? But what about Hong Kong and Singapore?
No, the UK's poor performance is primarily, though not exclusively, the fault of the government, and the PM in particular.
A bit older (esp over 80), a bit fatter, and lacking the mask-wearing culture seen in Asian countries. These all add up.
Certainly but they do not explain why the UK has almost 100,000 deaths and South Korea has 1300!
Isn't that where they have the ability to track every person so it is trivial to see who you have been in contact with? Not sure that'd go down too well in the UK.
I think if you gave people a choice between having their movements tracked and risking the deaths of themselves or their elderly relatives they would choose the former.
Given the proportion of people giving wrong information when getting tests, deliberately ignoring warnings about being infected, offer abuse and threats to those trying to contact them etc etc... I am not sure you can say that.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
LOL, Dumb and dumber pontificate on topics they don't understand, you could not make it up.
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
Boris should have closed the airports last March.
Point is, March was too late. In feb there were thousands of infections already in the community. Lot of skiing trips etc. We were seeded everywhere, but notably in London. Arguably we should have locked down a week earlier, which I am sure would have saved many lives in the first wave. It’s also clear that we should have kept the nov lockdown on because of new variant and because the cases were still too high.
Also we virtually eliminated deaths in May and June last year despite having no travel restrictions.
All this scapegoating of international travellers is very distasteful, but it's always easier to blame dreaded foreigners than get your own society under control.
It's clear that the uptick in Autumn was caused by an imported strain. Had there been no travel we'd probably still be ticking along with few deaths. And the opprobrium is shared by foreigners visiting and Brits returning from holiday equally.
It was down to local morons going on holiday , nothing to do with foreigners.
Biden doesn't need to deal with the delusional types. What he need to do is deal with the sane end of the GOP - this will offset any defections in the Senate by the Blue Dog democrats, on various policies.
Even as few as five votes could be very, very useful.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I think they would do well with EEA, as an interim step at least.
Full Single Market Access Control of Fishing grounds No currency commitment
I can see that working, though if I were Scottish would be keen to join the Euro. A currency not constantly being debased is worth having, even if it does require careful fiscal policies, though I would see these as a plus.
Amazing to see a sensible comment rather than the usual Scotch expert doom merchants predictions. We could do with some more intelligent discourse on the topic on here rather than the mad frothings from the usual suspects.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I'm not so sure. Some campaign fudge like promising a post-independence national conversation on the relationship with Europe could square the circle and allow the Eurosceptic Nat voters to go for the primary aim, and worry about blocking reaccession once it's achieved.
Scotland could very easily end up joining the EEA and EFTA. Unlike the UK, its presence wouldn't upset the balance of the latter.
Add you to Foxy as an intelligent poster on the topic, i
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I think they would do well with EEA, as an interim step at least.
Full Single Market Access Control of Fishing grounds No currency commitment
I can see that working, though if I were Scottish would be keen to join the Euro. A currency not constantly being debased is worth having, even if it does require careful fiscal policies, though I would see these as a plus.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I'm not so sure. Some campaign fudge like promising a post-independence national conversation on the relationship with Europe could square the circle and allow the Eurosceptic Nat voters to go for the primary aim, and worry about blocking reaccession once it's achieved.
Scotland could very easily end up joining the EEA and EFTA. Unlike the UK, its presence wouldn't upset the balance of the latter.
It would depend on how willing they were to have a full hard border with England. This would not be because of England imposing such a border. It would be a fundamental requirement for joining the Single Market.
This is why I think that, although I believe independence for Scotland is a good thing and something they should rightly pursue, joining the EEA or full membership of the EU is another matter entirely and, no matter how predisposed they are to the idea, they may well balk at the necessary changes.
Been looking at the cumulative vaccination stats. Back of a fag packet calculation suggests that about 13-14% of the adult population in this region (East of England) has now had the first dose, which is very encouraging.
I believe that the UK-wide figure is now running at around 10%, presumably due to lower rates in the devolved administrations and in London, but we're getting there.
I'm glad they've got over Nicola's aversion to mentioning "Oxford".
Do you think they lost much time in procuring blue envelopes? - I'm sure the London Conservative government is flattered, but it was surely unnecessary....
What on earth are you talking about? The SG has been talking about Oxford/Astrazeneca for weeks now, over a month, probably before you got it in your bonnet that it didn't like OU.
I welcome the change (from 7 January, so barely a fortnight, let alone "over a month"):
And the Tory blue envelopes! (Though I hope they didn't cost too much time or money)
You really are obsessed. And the DT is the last place in the world to find reliable info on the SNP. Ms Sturgeon was referencing Oxford and AZX up front in a major speech well before Christmas, for instance.
Michael Gove promised to release the Dunlop review in 2019 2 years on and he again refuses to let MPs see the report The Dunlop report is a review on a report on Scottish devolution Why has it been blocked for nearly 2 years?
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I think they would do well with EEA, as an interim step at least.
Full Single Market Access Control of Fishing grounds No currency commitment
I can see that working, though if I were Scottish would be keen to join the Euro. A currency not constantly being debased is worth having, even if it does require careful fiscal policies, though I would see these as a plus.
Scotland has a significant budget deficit and spends far more in terms of public spending than it receives in revenue, Berlin and Frankfurt would require significant tax rises and spending cuts before Scotland was even considered for the Euro
Guernsey COVID cases have gone from 6 (all inbound travel) to 10 (+4 community transmission with one from a school) to 35 (cases in 7 schools) - all schools shut, island in lockdown. It will be interesting to see how transmission is modelled later. Testing capacity is UK equivalent of 1,000,000/day. Samples being sent to UK for genomic sequencing.
Well done them for locking down quickly and hard at 50 cases per 100,000 rather than letting it fester for another couple of weeks until hospital capacity is threatened. Hopefully they'll be able to get rid of it again within a few weeks, with few casualties.
On death rate and death toll, it may well be too early to compare the UK's record with other countries, although it's not looking good. But if you ask the question 'is our death rate higher than it should be?' it seems clear that it is much higher. Off the top of my head, here's 4 things that have led to unnecessary deaths:
1) In Wave 1, not protecting care homes quickly or efficiently. 2) Although testing has been good throughout, the same cannot be said for the isolate part of test/trace/isolate. Far too few people tested positive or with symptoms have self-isolated for the required period - only about 20% I believe - because we never quite worked out how to make sure they did. 3) Prevarication and delay about locking down - slow last March and in Nov/Dec, slow to draw back on releasing everybody for Christmas, slow to close schools. Generally too reactive rather than proactive - last possible minute stuff. And opening up too quickly after lock down - not sure EOTHO was a good idea, for example. 4) Not securing our borders by testing incomers - allowing floods of people in - taking it on trust that they would isolate on return when it was fairly obvious many wouldn't.
I reckon the list of four above have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. If other countries have made the same or similar errors, I don't think that's much consolation to the deceased or their families.
Mind you, I agree that our vaccination is world-beating.
Guernsey COVID cases have gone from 6 (all inbound travel) to 10 (+4 community transmission with one from a school) to 35 (cases in 7 schools) - all schools shut, island in lockdown. It will be interesting to see how transmission is modelled later. Testing capacity is UK equivalent of 1,000,000/day. Samples being sent to UK for genomic sequencing.
Sorry to see these figures for Guernsey. A timely reminder that being an island does not guarantee protection. See Barra for further evidence. Guernsey has done everything right apart from one fatal flaw: relying too heavily on quarantine while continuing to live as normal. If the virus sneaks under the radar it will be all over the island before the tracers get their boots on. Similarly, NZ have an outbreak in Aukland that could prove equally troublesome:
In fairness they have come down on it fast and hard - lockdown was with "immediate effect" and hospitality/retail had closed by lunchtime and food retail was enforcing capacity constraints and socially distanced queuing. They are also "strongly recommending" face coverings. Traffic on the roads has collapsed and people appear to be following the advice. £10,000 fines for non-compliance is a powerful motivator.
The issue of infectivity after 14 days is being addressed by either 21 day quarantine or tests on arrival and at Day 13 - time will tell whether that's enough. The UK's "negative before flight, clear on Day 5" appears inadequate.
On death rate and death toll, it may well be too early to compare the UK's record with other countries, although it's not looking good. But if you ask the question 'is our death rate higher than it should be?' it seems clear that it is much higher. Off the top of my head, here's 4 things that have led to unnecessary deaths:
1) In Wave 1, not protecting care homes quickly or efficiently. 2) Although testing has been good throughout, the same cannot be said for the isolate part of test/trace/isolate. Far too few people tested positive or with symptoms have self-isolated for the required period - only about 20% I believe - because we never quite worked out how to make sure they did. 3) Prevarication and delay about locking down - slow last March and in Nov/Dec, slow to draw back on releasing everybody for Christmas, slow to close schools. Generally too reactive rather than proactive - last possible minute stuff. And opening up too quickly after lock down - not sure EOTHO was a good idea, for example. 4) Not securing our borders by testing incomers - allowing floods of people in - taking it on trust that they would isolate on return when it was fairly obvious many wouldn't.
I reckon the list of four above have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. If other countries have made the same or similar errors, I don't think that's much consolation to the deceased or their families.
Mind you, I agree that our vaccination is world-beating.
I think that's a fair summary.
However you look at it, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that government failures have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
On death rate and death toll, it may well be too early to compare the UK's record with other countries, although it's not looking good. But if you ask the question 'is our death rate higher than it should be?' it seems clear that it is much higher. Off the top of my head, here's 4 things that have led to unnecessary deaths:
1) In Wave 1, not protecting care homes quickly or efficiently. 2) Although testing has been good throughout, the same cannot be said for the isolate part of test/trace/isolate. Far too few people tested positive or with symptoms have self-isolated for the required period - only about 20% I believe - because we never quite worked out how to make sure they did. 3) Prevarication and delay about locking down - slow last March and in Nov/Dec, slow to draw back on releasing everybody for Christmas, slow to close schools. Generally too reactive rather than proactive - last possible minute stuff. And opening up too quickly after lock down - not sure EOTHO was a good idea, for example. 4) Not securing our borders by testing incomers - allowing floods of people in - taking it on trust that they would isolate on return when it was fairly obvious many wouldn't.
I reckon the list of four above have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. If other countries have made the same or similar errors, I don't think that's much consolation to the deceased or their families.
Mind you, I agree that our vaccination is world-beating.
For the amount we have invested in it, testing has not been ‘good throughout’. It has been effective for giving a fairly accurate and detailed (though delayed) measure of disease incidence. In terms of tracing chains of disease incidence (tracing) it has been poor. As far as prevention is concerned - isolation of those infected, and quarantine if contacts - it has been lamentable.
And note the most effective disease prevention measure - large scale testing of non symptomatic people - has been almost non existent compared to the overall effort.
Otherwise, pretty well agreed. But the testing mistakes (and as you say, other countries have made them too) have been extremely costly.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
LOL, Dumb and dumber pontificate on topics they don't understand, you could not make it up.
Unlike your genius with the phone cord in the mirror
On death rate and death toll, it may well be too early to compare the UK's record with other countries, although it's not looking good. But if you ask the question 'is our death rate higher than it should be?' it seems clear that it is much higher. Off the top of my head, here's 4 things that have led to unnecessary deaths:
1) In Wave 1, not protecting care homes quickly or efficiently. 2) Although testing has been good throughout, the same cannot be said for the isolate part of test/trace/isolate. Far too few people tested positive or with symptoms have self-isolated for the required period - only about 20% I believe - because we never quite worked out how to make sure they did. 3) Prevarication and delay about locking down - slow last March and in Nov/Dec, slow to draw back on releasing everybody for Christmas, slow to close schools. Generally too reactive rather than proactive - last possible minute stuff. And opening up too quickly after lock down - not sure EOTHO was a good idea, for example. 4) Not securing our borders by testing incomers - allowing floods of people in - taking it on trust that they would isolate on return when it was fairly obvious many wouldn't.
I reckon the list of four above have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. If other countries have made the same or similar errors, I don't think that's much consolation to the deceased or their families.
Mind you, I agree that our vaccination is world-beating.
I think that's a fair summary.
However you look at it, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that government failures have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
Mostly due to the false dilemma of health vs economy. All that late and/or weak restrictions have ever done is too slightly delay the economic damage while greatly increasing both the health damage and ultimately the economic damage as well, due to requiring longer lockdowns to get the situation back under control.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I think they would do well with EEA, as an interim step at least.
Full Single Market Access Control of Fishing grounds No currency commitment
I can see that working, though if I were Scottish would be keen to join the Euro. A currency not constantly being debased is worth having, even if it does require careful fiscal policies, though I would see these as a plus.
Scotland has a significant budget deficit and spends far more in terms of public spending than it receives in revenue, Berlin and Frankfurt would require significant tax rises and spending cuts before Scotland was even considered for the Euro
You really are twisted. Westminster has a significant budget deficit, Scotland cannot borrow and has to have a balanced budget based on what Westminster allows it. There is NO budget deficit in Scotland It would be a dawdle for a debt free Scotland to meet any requirements it wished to meet.
On death rate and death toll, it may well be too early to compare the UK's record with other countries, although it's not looking good. But if you ask the question 'is our death rate higher than it should be?' it seems clear that it is much higher. Off the top of my head, here's 4 things that have led to unnecessary deaths:
1) In Wave 1, not protecting care homes quickly or efficiently. 2) Although testing has been good throughout, the same cannot be said for the isolate part of test/trace/isolate. Far too few people tested positive or with symptoms have self-isolated for the required period - only about 20% I believe - because we never quite worked out how to make sure they did. 3) Prevarication and delay about locking down - slow last March and in Nov/Dec, slow to draw back on releasing everybody for Christmas, slow to close schools. Generally too reactive rather than proactive - last possible minute stuff. And opening up too quickly after lock down - not sure EOTHO was a good idea, for example. 4) Not securing our borders by testing incomers - allowing floods of people in - taking it on trust that they would isolate on return when it was fairly obvious many wouldn't.
I reckon the list of four above have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. If other countries have made the same or similar errors, I don't think that's much consolation to the deceased or their families.
Mind you, I agree that our vaccination is world-beating.
I think that's a fair summary.
However you look at it, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that government failures have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
Absolutely agree, but I would suggest this is true for a lot of countries. It’s not a unique uk (England) phenomenon
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
LOL, Dumb and dumber pontificate on topics they don't understand, you could not make it up.
Unlike your genius with the phone cord in the mirror
> Barack Obama is likely descended, through his mother, to John Punch, an African indentured servant sentenced to lifetime slavery in 1640 in Virginia, for attempting to flee the colony; two White indentured servants also caught had their indentures extended; thus Punch has been called ""first official slave in the English colonies". Note that family name was changed to Bunch(e), and in addition to Obama's mama other John Punch descendants include African American US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner Ralph Bunche.
> Warren Harding was alleged to have a Black great-grandmother in a book that may (or may not) have been written by William Estabrook Chamberlain, a historian and racist who became convinced in 1920, the year Harding was nominated for president, and subsequently elected by a landslide, that WH was a part-African ancestry, based on rumors circulating in some quarters on his home turf. However, this allegation was suppressed (wiki blurb doesn't mention it, but the US Postmaster General, a southern Democrat, barred the book from the mail, and no reputable publisher would touch it. For what it's worth, recent DNA analysis of Harding family members indicated that there was 95% probability that WH had no Black granny, or grand-daddy for that matter.
> Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson & Abraham Lincoln were accused by enemies (political & otherwise) of having Black ancestors. But with zero proof other than assertions in political pamphlets and the like. As with Harding, assertions that these POTUS had Black "blood" would be politically harmful IF they were believed. Which they were NOT except by the most gullible or demented of hard-core partisans.
> Calvin Coolidge and Dwight Eisenhower were/are also alleged to be secret African Americans, by a small bunch of wingnuts; for example, in the case of Silent Cal the "proof" is that his mother's maiden name was Moor.
On death rate and death toll, it may well be too early to compare the UK's record with other countries, although it's not looking good. But if you ask the question 'is our death rate higher than it should be?' it seems clear that it is much higher. Off the top of my head, here's 4 things that have led to unnecessary deaths:
1) In Wave 1, not protecting care homes quickly or efficiently. 2) Although testing has been good throughout, the same cannot be said for the isolate part of test/trace/isolate. Far too few people tested positive or with symptoms have self-isolated for the required period - only about 20% I believe - because we never quite worked out how to make sure they did. 3) Prevarication and delay about locking down - slow last March and in Nov/Dec, slow to draw back on releasing everybody for Christmas, slow to close schools. Generally too reactive rather than proactive - last possible minute stuff. And opening up too quickly after lock down - not sure EOTHO was a good idea, for example. 4) Not securing our borders by testing incomers - allowing floods of people in - taking it on trust that they would isolate on return when it was fairly obvious many wouldn't.
I reckon the list of four above have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. If other countries have made the same or similar errors, I don't think that's much consolation to the deceased or their families.
Mind you, I agree that our vaccination is world-beating.
For the amount we have invested in it, testing has not been ‘good throughout’. It has been effective for giving a fairly accurate and detailed (though delayed) measure of disease incidence. In terms of tracing chains of disease incidence (tracing) it has been poor. As far as prevention is concerned - isolation of those infected, and quarantine if contacts - it has been lamentable.
And note the most effective disease prevention measure - large scale testing of non symptomatic people - has been almost non existent compared to the overall effort.
Otherwise, pretty well agreed. But the testing mistakes (and as you say, other countries have made them too) have been extremely costly.
Stand down HYUFD, the SNP are gonnae lose deliberately, you can sleep easy. Tbf they'd certainly do a better job of beating themselves than the current 'oppositon'.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I'm not so sure. Some campaign fudge like promising a post-independence national conversation on the relationship with Europe could square the circle and allow the Eurosceptic Nat voters to go for the primary aim, and worry about blocking reaccession once it's achieved.
Scotland could very easily end up joining the EEA and EFTA. Unlike the UK, its presence wouldn't upset the balance of the latter.
It would depend on how willing they were to have a full hard border with England. This would not be because of England imposing such a border. It would be a fundamental requirement for joining the Single Market.
This is why I think that, although I believe independence for Scotland is a good thing and something they should rightly pursue, joining the EEA or full membership of the EU is another matter entirely and, no matter how predisposed they are to the idea, they may well balk at the necessary changes.
That's a good point - again, EEA is a trade-off but I think the two main issues are the hard border with England and the fax democracy problem. The open border immigration problem doesn't really apply to Scotland because their population management issues are very different to England's (no lengthy history of mass immigration or strong and consistent population growth, and AFAIK much less acute housing issues.) Set against which, they can go back into the European single market whilst avoiding both the CFP problem and the Euro problem.
Anyway, I think a bit of creative fudge may be able to neutralise the Europe issue for the pro-independence lot. Their main hurdles are likely to be the budget deficit and the currency, in that order. If they can convince enough middle income voters that they're not going to be substantially poorer as a result of separation then they win a rematch.
Stand down HYUFD, the SNP are gonnae lose deliberately, you can sleep easy. Tbf they'd certainly do a better job of beating themselves than the current 'oppositon'.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I think they would do well with EEA, as an interim step at least.
Full Single Market Access Control of Fishing grounds No currency commitment
I can see that working, though if I were Scottish would be keen to join the Euro. A currency not constantly being debased is worth having, even if it does require careful fiscal policies, though I would see these as a plus.
Scotland has a significant budget deficit and spends far more in terms of public spending than it receives in revenue, Berlin and Frankfurt would require significant tax rises and spending cuts before Scotland was even considered for the Euro
You really are twisted. Westminster has a significant budget deficit, Scotland cannot borrow and has to have a balanced budget based on what Westminster allows it. There is NO budget deficit in Scotland It would be a dawdle for a debt free Scotland to meet any requirements it wished to meet.
Scottish revenue per head in 2019-20 was £12,058 (even including its geographical share of North Sea Oil), Scottish public expenditure per head was £14,829.
The Scottish deficit was 8.6% compared to 2.5% for the UK.
If Scotland left the UK for the EU and Eurozone it would not really be independent at all but swapping rule from London for rule from Berlin and Frankfurt, as Greece discovered.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I'm not so sure. Some campaign fudge like promising a post-independence national conversation on the relationship with Europe could square the circle and allow the Eurosceptic Nat voters to go for the primary aim, and worry about blocking reaccession once it's achieved.
Scotland could very easily end up joining the EEA and EFTA. Unlike the UK, its presence wouldn't upset the balance of the latter.
It would depend on how willing they were to have a full hard border with England. This would not be because of England imposing such a border. It would be a fundamental requirement for joining the Single Market.
This is why I think that, although I believe independence for Scotland is a good thing and something they should rightly pursue, joining the EEA or full membership of the EU is another matter entirely and, no matter how predisposed they are to the idea, they may well balk at the necessary changes.
That's a good point - again, EEA is a trade-off but I think the two main issues are the hard border with England and the fax democracy problem. The open border immigration problem doesn't really apply to Scotland because their population management issues are very different to England's (no lengthy history of mass immigration or strong and consistent population growth, and AFAIK much less acute housing issues.) Set against which, they can go back into the European single market whilst avoiding both the CFP problem and the Euro problem.
Anyway, I think a bit of creative fudge may be able to neutralise the Europe issue for the pro-independence lot. Their main hurdles are likely to be the budget deficit and the currency, in that order. If they can convince enough middle income voters that they're not going to be substantially poorer as a result of separation then they win a rematch.
Who knows whether they will have a budget deficit, currently all we have are fudged numbers from Westminster with multiple estimates, 167 last time I saw it, re deficits. Reality is that this is based on flawed UK budgets. An independent small country would not need much of the baggage Westminster currently claim it has as expenditure and so it i swell within the means of Scotland to have a balanced budget with manageable deficit given it will have no debt or huge assets if it is forced to take Westminster debts.
Stand down HYUFD, the SNP are gonnae lose deliberately, you can sleep easy. Tbf they'd certainly do a better job of beating themselves than the current 'oppositon'.
It's nice to see that more mainstream SNP types have to wrestle with their own equivalents of the Brexit ultras and headbangers (heidbangers?) when it comes to independence strategy.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I think they would do well with EEA, as an interim step at least.
Full Single Market Access Control of Fishing grounds No currency commitment
I can see that working, though if I were Scottish would be keen to join the Euro. A currency not constantly being debased is worth having, even if it does require careful fiscal policies, though I would see these as a plus.
Scotland has a significant budget deficit and spends far more in terms of public spending than it receives in revenue, Berlin and Frankfurt would require significant tax rises and spending cuts before Scotland was even considered for the Euro
You really are twisted. Westminster has a significant budget deficit, Scotland cannot borrow and has to have a balanced budget based on what Westminster allows it. There is NO budget deficit in Scotland It would be a dawdle for a debt free Scotland to meet any requirements it wished to meet.
Scottish revenue per head in 2019-20 was £12,058 (even including its geographical share of North Sea Oil), Scottish public expenditure per head was £14,829.
The Scottish deficit was 8.6% compared to 2.5% for the UK.
If Scotland left the UK for the EU and Eurozone it would not really be independent at all but swapping rule from London for rule from Berlin and Frankfurt, as Greece discovered.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I'm not so sure. Some campaign fudge like promising a post-independence national conversation on the relationship with Europe could square the circle and allow the Eurosceptic Nat voters to go for the primary aim, and worry about blocking reaccession once it's achieved.
Scotland could very easily end up joining the EEA and EFTA. Unlike the UK, its presence wouldn't upset the balance of the latter.
It would depend on how willing they were to have a full hard border with England. This would not be because of England imposing such a border. It would be a fundamental requirement for joining the Single Market.
This is why I think that, although I believe independence for Scotland is a good thing and something they should rightly pursue, joining the EEA or full membership of the EU is another matter entirely and, no matter how predisposed they are to the idea, they may well balk at the necessary changes.
That's a good point - again, EEA is a trade-off but I think the two main issues are the hard border with England and the fax democracy problem. The open border immigration problem doesn't really apply to Scotland because their population management issues are very different to England's (no lengthy history of mass immigration or strong and consistent population growth, and AFAIK much less acute housing issues.) Set against which, they can go back into the European single market whilst avoiding both the CFP problem and the Euro problem.
Anyway, I think a bit of creative fudge may be able to neutralise the Europe issue for the pro-independence lot. Their main hurdles are likely to be the budget deficit and the currency, in that order. If they can convince enough middle income voters that they're not going to be substantially poorer as a result of separation then they win a rematch.
Who knows whether they will have a budget deficit, currently all we have are fudged numbers from Westminster with multiple estimates, 167 last time I saw it, re deficits. Reality is that this is based on flawed UK budgets. An independent small country would not need much of the baggage Westminster currently claim it has as expenditure and so it i swell within the means of Scotland to have a balanced budget with manageable deficit given it will have no debt or huge assets if it is forced to take Westminster debts.
How would you be paying off the Scottish share of British national debt, do you think?
Stand down HYUFD, the SNP are gonnae lose deliberately, you can sleep easy. Tbf they'd certainly do a better job of beating themselves than the current 'oppositon'.
It's nice to see that more mainstream SNP types have to wrestle with their own equivalents of the Brexit ultras and headbangers (heidbangers?) when it comes to independence strategy.
Pray tell how you reach that mental opinion from the information there.
Stand down HYUFD, the SNP are gonnae lose deliberately, you can sleep easy. Tbf they'd certainly do a better job of beating themselves than the current 'oppositon'.
Fine for Sturgeon, she gets to keep her 6 figure salary and Bute House with hubbie and can focus on domestic policy and blame the cybernats for costing her her majority
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I think they would do well with EEA, as an interim step at least.
Full Single Market Access Control of Fishing grounds No currency commitment
I can see that working, though if I were Scottish would be keen to join the Euro. A currency not constantly being debased is worth having, even if it does require careful fiscal policies, though I would see these as a plus.
Scotland has a significant budget deficit and spends far more in terms of public spending than it receives in revenue, Berlin and Frankfurt would require significant tax rises and spending cuts before Scotland was even considered for the Euro
You really are twisted. Westminster has a significant budget deficit, Scotland cannot borrow and has to have a balanced budget based on what Westminster allows it. There is NO budget deficit in Scotland It would be a dawdle for a debt free Scotland to meet any requirements it wished to meet.
Scottish revenue per head in 2019-20 was £12,058 (even including its geographical share of North Sea Oil), Scottish public expenditure per head was £14,829.
The Scottish deficit was 8.6% compared to 2.5% for the UK.
If Scotland left the UK for the EU and Eurozone it would not really be independent at all but swapping rule from London for rule from Berlin and Frankfurt, as Greece discovered.
312 years of Union and a financial basket case
*The positive case for the Union*
The blame lies with the spendthrift SNP government in Scotland not the Union
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
LOL, Dumb and dumber pontificate on topics they don't understand, you could not make it up.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
LOL, Dumb and dumber pontificate on topics they don't understand, you could not make it up.
Never stops you!
Malc lashes out with comedy insults with anyone that critiques independence, and lavishes praise on those who suggest a path to it.
I'm long past taking it seriously. It's like a reflex action.
Stand down HYUFD, the SNP are gonnae lose deliberately, you can sleep easy. Tbf they'd certainly do a better job of beating themselves than the current 'oppositon'.
It's nice to see that more mainstream SNP types have to wrestle with their own equivalents of the Brexit ultras and headbangers (heidbangers?) when it comes to independence strategy.
Pray tell how you reach that mental opinion from the information there.
From her tweets, she's clearly a pro-independence person who no longer trusts the SNP to deliver - a bit like the attitude of the Kippers and BXPers towards the Tories for a long time. The anti-Nicola, pro-Wings, UDI Now kind of crowd. The retweet she posted from a similar account is quite expressive:
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I'm not so sure. Some campaign fudge like promising a post-independence national conversation on the relationship with Europe could square the circle and allow the Eurosceptic Nat voters to go for the primary aim, and worry about blocking reaccession once it's achieved.
Scotland could very easily end up joining the EEA and EFTA. Unlike the UK, its presence wouldn't upset the balance of the latter.
It would depend on how willing they were to have a full hard border with England. This would not be because of England imposing such a border. It would be a fundamental requirement for joining the Single Market.
This is why I think that, although I believe independence for Scotland is a good thing and something they should rightly pursue, joining the EEA or full membership of the EU is another matter entirely and, no matter how predisposed they are to the idea, they may well balk at the necessary changes.
That's a good point - again, EEA is a trade-off but I think the two main issues are the hard border with England and the fax democracy problem. The open border immigration problem doesn't really apply to Scotland because their population management issues are very different to England's (no lengthy history of mass immigration or strong and consistent population growth, and AFAIK much less acute housing issues.) Set against which, they can go back into the European single market whilst avoiding both the CFP problem and the Euro problem.
Anyway, I think a bit of creative fudge may be able to neutralise the Europe issue for the pro-independence lot. Their main hurdles are likely to be the budget deficit and the currency, in that order. If they can convince enough middle income voters that they're not going to be substantially poorer as a result of separation then they win a rematch.
Who knows whether they will have a budget deficit, currently all we have are fudged numbers from Westminster with multiple estimates, 167 last time I saw it, re deficits. Reality is that this is based on flawed UK budgets. An independent small country would not need much of the baggage Westminster currently claim it has as expenditure and so it i swell within the means of Scotland to have a balanced budget with manageable deficit given it will have no debt or huge assets if it is forced to take Westminster debts.
How would you be paying off the Scottish share of British national debt, do you think?
There's also the cost of decommissioning North Sea oil platforms and piplelines. Don't expect the EU to insist on anything other than gold standard clean-ups - these numbers may be on the optimistic end:
"The Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) told the NAO that the total cost of decommissioning the North Sea’s oil and gas infrastructure could be up to £77bn. HMRC’s current estimate of the cost to the public through tax relief is £24bn, including £12.9bn in repayments of taxes previously collected. However, the NAO found that figure was “subject to significant uncertainty”, because some operators’ decommissioning costs could increase by as much as 100 per cent and other factors, such as oil prices, decommissioning costs and exchange rates, could vary significantly."
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I think they would do well with EEA, as an interim step at least.
Full Single Market Access Control of Fishing grounds No currency commitment
I can see that working, though if I were Scottish would be keen to join the Euro. A currency not constantly being debased is worth having, even if it does require careful fiscal policies, though I would see these as a plus.
Scotland has a significant budget deficit and spends far more in terms of public spending than it receives in revenue, Berlin and Frankfurt would require significant tax rises and spending cuts before Scotland was even considered for the Euro
You really are twisted. Westminster has a significant budget deficit, Scotland cannot borrow and has to have a balanced budget based on what Westminster allows it. There is NO budget deficit in Scotland It would be a dawdle for a debt free Scotland to meet any requirements it wished to meet.
Scottish revenue per head in 2019-20 was £12,058 (even including its geographical share of North Sea Oil), Scottish public expenditure per head was £14,829.
The Scottish deficit was 8.6% compared to 2.5% for the UK.
If Scotland left the UK for the EU and Eurozone it would not really be independent at all but swapping rule from London for rule from Berlin and Frankfurt, as Greece discovered.
312 years of Union and a financial basket case
*The positive case for the Union*
Mr Divvie, is that you admitting that Scotland is a financial basket case?
It's nice to see that more mainstream SNP types have to wrestle with their own equivalents of the Brexit ultras and headbangers (heidbangers?) when it comes to independence strategy.
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I think they would do well with EEA, as an interim step at least.
Full Single Market Access Control of Fishing grounds No currency commitment
I can see that working, though if I were Scottish would be keen to join the Euro. A currency not constantly being debased is worth having, even if it does require careful fiscal policies, though I would see these as a plus.
Scotland has a significant budget deficit and spends far more in terms of public spending than it receives in revenue, Berlin and Frankfurt would require significant tax rises and spending cuts before Scotland was even considered for the Euro
You really are twisted. Westminster has a significant budget deficit, Scotland cannot borrow and has to have a balanced budget based on what Westminster allows it. There is NO budget deficit in Scotland It would be a dawdle for a debt free Scotland to meet any requirements it wished to meet.
Scottish revenue per head in 2019-20 was £12,058 (even including its geographical share of North Sea Oil), Scottish public expenditure per head was £14,829.
The Scottish deficit was 8.6% compared to 2.5% for the UK.
If Scotland left the UK for the EU and Eurozone it would not really be independent at all but swapping rule from London for rule from Berlin and Frankfurt, as Greece discovered.
312 years of Union and a financial basket case
*The positive case for the Union*
Mr Divvie, is that you admitting that Scotland is a financial basket case?
I'm just adopting the tone of 'Albania on the North Sea' Unionists such as HYUFD; best to be familiar with the mindset of your opponents I find, especially when they lumber into trying to tell me how great the Union is for Scotland. They seem to simultaneously want Scotland to be perceived as crap and Scotland to continue in the arrangement that bears *some* responsibility for that situation.
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
Boris should have closed the airports last March.
Point is, March was too late. In feb there were thousands of infections already in the community. Lot of skiing trips etc. We were seeded everywhere, but notably in London. Arguably we should have locked down a week earlier, which I am sure would have saved many lives in the first wave. It’s also clear that we should have kept the nov lockdown on because of new variant and because the cases were still too high.
Also we virtually eliminated deaths in May and June last year despite having no travel restrictions.
All this scapegoating of international travellers is very distasteful, but it's always easier to blame dreaded foreigners than get your own society under control.
It's clear that the uptick in Autumn was caused by an imported strain. Had there been no travel we'd probably still be ticking along with few deaths. And the opprobrium is shared by foreigners visiting and Brits returning from holiday equally.
I don't think that's quite true.
If you look at July, UK cases were running at around 5-700/day. So, at any one time, perhaps 15,000 people in the UK had (and were infectious with) Coronavirus. Given restrictions kept being loosened in the Autumn (and we had programmes encouraging people to eat out) it was always going to grow quickly from that base.
With more onerous restrictions, we would have slowed the growth, and it would probably have bought us two or three weeks. But it wouldn't have stopped a second half of the year surge.
Travel restrictions are incredibly useful tools if cases are very low. But when they are high, they can have only a modest effect. There are probably at least 300,000 people in the UK with CV19, so it's while we don't want to import 1,000 new cases in the next week, it probably has little impact on overall rates.
Hawaii has consistently very low levels of CV19 - by far the best in the US. It manages this via (a) requiring a negative PCR test 48 hours before travel, and (b) some relatively minor restrictions such as mask wearing in public places and reduced restaurant capacity.
I would suggest that is the model we'd want to emulate medium term. It won't catch everyone, but given that we're going to probably go from 3 million vaccinations a week to 5 million, it probably achieves 98% of the efficacy for 2% of the cost.
Reflecting on the SNP plan I have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is better at politics than me:
I had assumed that it would be the SNP suing the Westminster government to ascertain the legality of an advisory referendum. By inverting it and daring Westminster to sue the Scottish Gov after the Scottish government had been elected on an explicit platform of having a referendum utterly changes the narrative.
Also publishing this plan completely and utterly shoots the foxes of her "wHeRE is PLaN B Nicola??!?" internal opponents.
She’s not though?
My understanding was that without a Section 30 order the Scottish law is ultra vires.
She can hold a poll but it wouldn’t have legal standing. I could see she might even get into trouble for spending public money on it although I am sure there will be a way around it.
Just drafting a section 30 notice doesn’t solve anything because it needs to be agreed by the U.K. government as well as the Scottish government
But I’ve not made a close study of it so perhaps someone can explain what I’ve missed?
There is no law stopping the Scottish government having and advisory referendum on any topic.
But equally there is no power vested in the Scottish government vis a vis constitutional matters. They're reserved powers.
Any such poll would surely be boycotted by unionists and ignored, don't you think?
Yup. In the same way a second Brexit referendum would have been boycotted by those who had voted Leave.
A boycotted referendum is the worst possible outcome for the SNP. Makes them look ridiculous, deligitimises the entire cause, infuriates everyone, looks utterly mad and wasteful in a time of great sadness, would finish Sturgeon's career.
She is being pressured to do something she knows is stupid and wrong. A grave dilemma for her
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
That might be a valid comparison if every country had the same demographics.
That might be a valid comparison if Corbyn was PM
Fixed it for you
PB Tories in its down to our demographics DENIAL
Are you seriously suggesting demographics don't come into it?
Nah, Britain being a global transit hub with a disproportionately elderly and overweight population, many of them crammed into some of the highest-density areas in the world, clearly makes us no different from New Zealand.
Population density has little to do with it - Taiwan and South Korea are much denser than the UK and they have hardly any deaths, the US and Brazil are much less dense but they have suffered badly. Hong Kong and Singapore are transit hubs with very high population densities, they also have far fewer deaths than the UK.
It's a perfect storm of age, obesety and being a global transport hub. New York State and England are very similar in that respect.
Plus a lot of communities happy to ignore lockdown. From Orthodox Jews to the Brother of Jeremy Corbyn (who, I am sure, has a NYC equivalent)
The reason Nicola hasn't committed to it is because there's enough people who voted Yes and Leave that would sit on their hands or switch to No that it could swing the referendum to No. Everything is based around "Scotland could join the EU once independent" leaving the door open for Yes/Leave voters to vote Yes again.
I also think the idea of EU membership crystallising in having to adopt the Euro would be very unpopular.
Rejoining the EU is the tightrope off which the SNP's bid for independence falls.
I'm not so sure. Some campaign fudge like promising a post-independence national conversation on the relationship with Europe could square the circle and allow the Eurosceptic Nat voters to go for the primary aim, and worry about blocking reaccession once it's achieved.
Scotland could very easily end up joining the EEA and EFTA. Unlike the UK, its presence wouldn't upset the balance of the latter.
It would depend on how willing they were to have a full hard border with England. This would not be because of England imposing such a border. It would be a fundamental requirement for joining the Single Market.
This is why I think that, although I believe independence for Scotland is a good thing and something they should rightly pursue, joining the EEA or full membership of the EU is another matter entirely and, no matter how predisposed they are to the idea, they may well balk at the necessary changes.
That's a good point - again, EEA is a trade-off but I think the two main issues are the hard border with England and the fax democracy problem. The open border immigration problem doesn't really apply to Scotland because their population management issues are very different to England's (no lengthy history of mass immigration or strong and consistent population growth, and AFAIK much less acute housing issues.) Set against which, they can go back into the European single market whilst avoiding both the CFP problem and the Euro problem.
Anyway, I think a bit of creative fudge may be able to neutralise the Europe issue for the pro-independence lot. Their main hurdles are likely to be the budget deficit and the currency, in that order. If they can convince enough middle income voters that they're not going to be substantially poorer as a result of separation then they win a rematch.
Who knows whether they will have a budget deficit, currently all we have are fudged numbers from Westminster with multiple estimates, 167 last time I saw it, re deficits. Reality is that this is based on flawed UK budgets. An independent small country would not need much of the baggage Westminster currently claim it has as expenditure and so it i swell within the means of Scotland to have a balanced budget with manageable deficit given it will have no debt or huge assets if it is forced to take Westminster debts.
According to Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland, Scotland's net public sector fiscal deficit for 2019/20 was about £15bn (the numbers vary by a few hundred million, depending on whether or not these are adjusted to include a geographic share of North Sea oil revenues, but that's no longer a game changer in the great scheme of things.) The Scottish Government therefore spends about £15bn more than the sum currently raised in Scotland through taxation. The difference is covered by the Treasury through the block grant, i.e. paid for by a combination of borrowing and tax revenues raised in England.
The large bulk of the £15bn can't be easily written off through policy choices. If we're about to bring up Trident or expeditionary armed forces here, the defence budget constitutes only about 6% of UK Government spending, so contributions to defence from Scottish taxation won't be distorting the figures to any great extent. Incidentally, if we think about the likely cost of an independent Scottish defence establishment, it probably helps to look at a European NATO country of comparable size like Denmark, which has an annual defence budget of approximately £3.6bn. One way to save more money post-independence would be to maintain a light gendarmerie like Ireland (cost: about £700m) or to go the full Costa Rica and not bother.
Anyway, defence aside, most government spending consists of pensions, welfare benefits, health care, education and other public services. Unless and until it can remedy the situation with economic growth, which won't come instantaneously of course, Scotland can only avoid implementing some combination of tax rises and cuts to social security and services to bridge the deficit if it is able to persuade the money markets to cover the entire lot (around 9% of GDP, against 2.5% for the whole UK) with fresh borrowing. Even in the environment created by the pandemic, where developed world bond yields are very low, that's far from certain - and the cost of borrowing isn't necessarily going to stay where it is indefinitely.
These issues aren't insurmountable - Scotland is a rich country - but there is no point in pretending that they do not exist. If and when the Scottish Government can secure a re-run of the independence referendum, then one of the things it will probably need to have in order to win is a realistic plan for how to deal with the deficit that can secure the backing of floating voters.
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
That is a very very simplistic calculation that is would fall apart rapidly. There is no consideration for population density, age groups, country location etc, and then there is each country's definition of a death due to covid.
It's like those who use Sweden's death rate Vs UK death rate to oppose lockdowns, comparing an apple to a cricket ball.
I don't think the government has handled this very well, certainly when it has come to learning lessons from ourselves or abroad, but using statistics like that reminds me of how an ex orange president liked to do.
Excess deaths is the acknowledged way of comparing.
How do you think we rank in an excess death comparison?
Given the way the vaccine rollout is going, it is entirely possible we move down the excess deaths/total deaths league table as we have highly vaccinated population whilst the EU have enough to vaccinate Luxembourg.
Then I suspect you'll stop mentioning these metrics.
Tricky now, I'd have thought.
Boris's Big Christmas Party has given about 10k extra deaths.
That's a couple of months at 100-200 deaths per day.
10k extra? I'd like to see the working here.
Little more than order of magnitude guesstimation, to be fair. But the contents of my envelope back were roughly:
We're at about 1000 a day now, have been for a week, will be for at least another week. Comparing England with other home nations, about a half of those look like they're Christmas related (from the English rise not happening elsewhere). 14 days x 500 gives 7000, round it up because we won't return to trend immediately.
I'd argue that disentangling the effect of Christmas day from the spread of the new variant is quite challenging. I don't think you can just assert that half of them came from the relaxed restrictions.
Fair point; it's certainly the weakest link in the chain. However, the comparison with other parts of the UK is suggestive, and if those responsible for England had a more relaxed set of restrictions despite knowing that New Improved Covid was around, more fool them.
Were behaviours in the four nations really that different for Christmas day. If I am remembering correctly the differences between the restrictions were not that significant.
The key bit was immediately post-Christmas; England went temporarily back into tiers, the others went into a pre-arranged lockdown.
Just before Christmas was important as well. While London and bits of the south east were rightly put into tier 4 the week before, the rest of the country were left in tier 3 or even 2 (i.e. pubs open) until Dec 30, allowing the new variant to take hold there as well. As a result, e.g. Liverpool had a London sized spike of over 1000 cases/week/100,000.
So the UK represents 0.87% of the World Population - 21st biggest Population
The UK has 4.59% of the Worlds COVID deaths - 5th highest in terms of total deaths
Of the Worlds 75 biggest Nations by Population the UK has the worst death rate per Million
WORLD BEATING BORIS
Boris should have closed the airports last March.
Point is, March was too late. In feb there were thousands of infections already in the community. Lot of skiing trips etc. We were seeded everywhere, but notably in London. Arguably we should have locked down a week earlier, which I am sure would have saved many lives in the first wave. It’s also clear that we should have kept the nov lockdown on because of new variant and because the cases were still too high.
Also we virtually eliminated deaths in May and June last year despite having no travel restrictions.
All this scapegoating of international travellers is very distasteful, but it's always easier to blame dreaded foreigners than get your own society under control.
It's clear that the uptick in Autumn was caused by an imported strain. Had there been no travel we'd probably still be ticking along with few deaths. And the opprobrium is shared by foreigners visiting and Brits returning from holiday equally.
I don't think that's quite true.
If you look at July, UK cases were running at around 5-700/day. So, at any one time, perhaps 15,000 people in the UK had (and were infectious with) Coronavirus. Given restrictions kept being loosened in the Autumn (and we had programmes encouraging people to eat out) it was always going to grow quickly from that base.
With more onerous restrictions, we would have slowed the growth, and it would probably have bought us two or three weeks. But it wouldn't have stopped a second half of the year surge.
Travel restrictions are incredibly useful tools if cases are very low. But when they are high, they can have only a modest effect. There are probably at least 300,000 people in the UK with CV19, so it's while we don't want to import 1,000 new cases in the next week, it probably has little impact on overall rates.
Hawaii has consistently very low levels of CV19 - by far the best in the US. It manages this via (a) requiring a negative PCR test 48 hours before travel, and (b) some relatively minor restrictions such as mask wearing in public places and reduced restaurant capacity.
I would suggest that is the model we'd want to emulate medium term. It won't catch everyone, but given that we're going to probably go from 3 million vaccinations a week to 5 million, it probably achieves 98% of the efficacy for 2% of the cost.
Actually I think the phylogenetic analyses showed that a large proportion of the autumn/winter increase was imported strains, not the strains that were circulating here in the summer. I don't have the link to hand but this finding surprised me, and I've changed my mind about the importance of stronger border enforcement. (Previously I shared your view that importing another say 1000 cases is irrelevant when the virus is widespread here already.)
Of course, the number of new strains emerging also speaks in favour of stronger border controls. If one arises that really is vaccine-resistant, we want the maximum amount of time to tweak our vaccines before it becomes widespread here.
Any guesses where an independent Scotland would fit into this list?
Plucky Luxembourg paying its share, I see.
EU contribution per capita - Luxembourg - €2,700 Poland - €290
GDP (PPP) per capita - Luxembourg - $112,000 Poland - $34,000
How the actual fuck do they work these numbers out?
I think the numbers include any spending in country, not just direct governmental subsidies. As Luxembourg contains a number of EU agencies, all that spend will be included in their figures. (And hence why Belgium is also so high up the list.)
I've always thought Farage a clown but until I watched him in the Trump program Downfall I didn't realise what an oleaginous creature he is. He makes Guiliani seem an upright human being
If they want to conquer and retake Taiwan, roughly about now would be ideal. Otherwise they will have to wait until about 2035, when they have total economic supremacy and regional hegemony.
“Some people might put this change down to Brexit, but it is actually just greed. It is well within the power of the card schemes to make merchants' lives easy and keep things operating as they were pre-2021,” said Joel Gladwin, head of policy at the Coalition for a Digital Economy, which represents British start-ups.
Comments
All this scapegoating of international travellers is very distasteful, but it's always easier to blame dreaded foreigners than get your own society under control.
But then Christmas goes on until at least Twelfth Night...
(Besides- whilst my hunch is that 10k is about right, it's a physics estimate, so that means more than 3k, less than 30k.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-55785787
Scotland could very easily end up joining the EEA and EFTA. Unlike the UK, its presence wouldn't upset the balance of the latter.
Full Single Market Access
Control of Fishing grounds
No currency commitment
I can see that working, though if I were Scottish would be keen to join the Euro. A currency not constantly being debased is worth having, even if it does require careful fiscal policies, though I would see these as a plus.
Even as few as five votes could be very, very useful.
This is why I think that, although I believe independence for Scotland is a good thing and something they should rightly pursue, joining the EEA or full membership of the EU is another matter entirely and, no matter how predisposed they are to the idea, they may well balk at the necessary changes.
I believe that the UK-wide figure is now running at around 10%, presumably due to lower rates in the devolved administrations and in London, but we're getting there.
Why has it been blocked for nearly 2 years?
1) In Wave 1, not protecting care homes quickly or efficiently.
2) Although testing has been good throughout, the same cannot be said for the isolate part of test/trace/isolate. Far too few people tested positive or with symptoms have self-isolated for the required period - only about 20% I believe - because we never quite worked out how to make sure they did.
3) Prevarication and delay about locking down - slow last March and in Nov/Dec, slow to draw back on releasing everybody for Christmas, slow to close schools. Generally too reactive rather than proactive - last possible minute stuff. And opening up too quickly after lock down - not sure EOTHO was a good idea, for example.
4) Not securing our borders by testing incomers - allowing floods of people in - taking it on trust that they would isolate on return when it was fairly obvious many wouldn't.
I reckon the list of four above have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. If other countries have made the same or similar errors, I don't think that's much consolation to the deceased or their families.
Mind you, I agree that our vaccination is world-beating.
The issue of infectivity after 14 days is being addressed by either 21 day quarantine or tests on arrival and at Day 13 - time will tell whether that's enough. The UK's "negative before flight, clear on Day 5" appears inadequate.
However you look at it, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that government failures have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
It has been effective for giving a fairly accurate and detailed (though delayed) measure of disease incidence. In terms of tracing chains of disease incidence (tracing) it has been poor. As far as prevention is concerned - isolation of those infected, and quarantine if contacts - it has been lamentable.
And note the most effective disease prevention measure - large scale testing of non symptomatic people - has been almost non existent compared to the overall effort.
Otherwise, pretty well agreed.
But the testing mistakes (and as you say, other countries have made them too) have been extremely costly.
It would be a dawdle for a debt free Scotland to meet any requirements it wished to meet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_heritage_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
> Barack Obama is likely descended, through his mother, to John Punch, an African indentured servant sentenced to lifetime slavery in 1640 in Virginia, for attempting to flee the colony; two White indentured servants also caught had their indentures extended; thus Punch has been called ""first official slave in the English colonies". Note that family name was changed to Bunch(e), and in addition to Obama's mama other John Punch descendants include African American US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner Ralph Bunche.
> Warren Harding was alleged to have a Black great-grandmother in a book that may (or may not) have been written by William Estabrook Chamberlain, a historian and racist who became convinced in 1920, the year Harding was nominated for president, and subsequently elected by a landslide, that WH was a part-African ancestry, based on rumors circulating in some quarters on his home turf. However, this allegation was suppressed (wiki blurb doesn't mention it, but the US Postmaster General, a southern Democrat, barred the book from the mail, and no reputable publisher would touch it. For what it's worth, recent DNA analysis of Harding family members indicated that there was 95% probability that WH had no Black granny, or grand-daddy for that matter.
> Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson & Abraham Lincoln were accused by enemies (political & otherwise) of having Black ancestors. But with zero proof other than assertions in political pamphlets and the like. As with Harding, assertions that these POTUS had Black "blood" would be politically harmful IF they were believed. Which they were NOT except by the most gullible or demented of hard-core partisans.
> Calvin Coolidge and Dwight Eisenhower were/are also alleged to be secret African Americans, by a small bunch of wingnuts; for example, in the case of Silent Cal the "proof" is that his mother's maiden name was Moor.
https://twitter.com/meljomur/status/1353321083152293888?s=20
https://twitter.com/Global_Mil_Info/status/1353424307871879168
https://twitter.com/Global_Mil_Info/status/1353423241931595776
Anyway, I think a bit of creative fudge may be able to neutralise the Europe issue for the pro-independence lot. Their main hurdles are likely to be the budget deficit and the currency, in that order. If they can convince enough middle income voters that they're not going to be substantially poorer as a result of separation then they win a rematch.
The Scottish deficit was 8.6% compared to 2.5% for the UK.
If Scotland left the UK for the EU and Eurozone it would not really be independent at all but swapping rule from London for rule from Berlin and Frankfurt, as Greece discovered.
https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1353438666388078595?s=19
*The positive case for the Union*
Within hours of taking office you get tested with shit like this.
I'm long past taking it seriously. It's like a reflex action.
https://twitter.com/ellenjoelle/status/1353324610679410689
"The Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) told the NAO that the total cost of decommissioning the North Sea’s oil and gas infrastructure could be up to £77bn. HMRC’s current estimate of the cost to the public through tax relief is £24bn, including £12.9bn in repayments of taxes previously collected. However, the NAO found that figure was “subject to significant uncertainty”, because some operators’ decommissioning costs could increase by as much as 100 per cent and other factors, such as oil prices, decommissioning costs and exchange rates, could vary significantly."
https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/energy/2019/01/uk-taxpayers-spend-least-24bn-cleaning-after-oil-companies-north-sea#:~:text=The Oil and Gas Authority,repayments of taxes previously collected.
If you look at July, UK cases were running at around 5-700/day. So, at any one time, perhaps 15,000 people in the UK had (and were infectious with) Coronavirus. Given restrictions kept being loosened in the Autumn (and we had programmes encouraging people to eat out) it was always going to grow quickly from that base.
With more onerous restrictions, we would have slowed the growth, and it would probably have bought us two or three weeks. But it wouldn't have stopped a second half of the year surge.
Travel restrictions are incredibly useful tools if cases are very low. But when they are high, they can have only a modest effect. There are probably at least 300,000 people in the UK with CV19, so it's while we don't want to import 1,000 new cases in the next week, it probably has little impact on overall rates.
Hawaii has consistently very low levels of CV19 - by far the best in the US. It manages this via (a) requiring a negative PCR test 48 hours before travel, and (b) some relatively minor restrictions such as mask wearing in public places and reduced restaurant capacity.
I would suggest that is the model we'd want to emulate medium term. It won't catch everyone, but given that we're going to probably go from 3 million vaccinations a week to 5 million, it probably achieves 98% of the efficacy for 2% of the cost.
She is being pressured to do something she knows is stupid and wrong. A grave dilemma for her
The large bulk of the £15bn can't be easily written off through policy choices. If we're about to bring up Trident or expeditionary armed forces here, the defence budget constitutes only about 6% of UK Government spending, so contributions to defence from Scottish taxation won't be distorting the figures to any great extent. Incidentally, if we think about the likely cost of an independent Scottish defence establishment, it probably helps to look at a European NATO country of comparable size like Denmark, which has an annual defence budget of approximately £3.6bn. One way to save more money post-independence would be to maintain a light gendarmerie like Ireland (cost: about £700m) or to go the full Costa Rica and not bother.
Anyway, defence aside, most government spending consists of pensions, welfare benefits, health care, education and other public services. Unless and until it can remedy the situation with economic growth, which won't come instantaneously of course, Scotland can only avoid implementing some combination of tax rises and cuts to social security and services to bridge the deficit if it is able to persuade the money markets to cover the entire lot (around 9% of GDP, against 2.5% for the whole UK) with fresh borrowing. Even in the environment created by the pandemic, where developed world bond yields are very low, that's far from certain - and the cost of borrowing isn't necessarily going to stay where it is indefinitely.
These issues aren't insurmountable - Scotland is a rich country - but there is no point in pretending that they do not exist. If and when the Scottish Government can secure a re-run of the independence referendum, then one of the things it will probably need to have in order to win is a realistic plan for how to deal with the deficit that can secure the backing of floating voters.
Luxembourg - €2,700
Poland - €290
GDP (PPP) per capita -
Luxembourg - $112,000
Poland - $34,000
How the actual fuck do they work these numbers out?
Of course, the number of new strains emerging also speaks in favour of stronger border controls. If one arises that really is vaccine-resistant, we want the maximum amount of time to tweak our vaccines before it becomes widespread here.
--AS
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
Either way, it is coming