If the UK government agrees another referendum now not only is there a large risk of losing Scotland, though no certainty with 49% Yes including DKs on the latest poll but also they would be showing no willingness to stand up for the SNP who even if they lose indyref2 will demand indyref3 the next day exactly as many nationalists refused to accept the result on the 2014 referendum.
Even if a referendum was held by Sturgeon without UK government approval Boris could ignore it exactly as Rajoy ignored the unconstitutional 2017 Catalan referendum even though 92% of Catalan voters voted for independence on a 43% turnout.
That was the right decision by the Spanish PM to uphold the Spanish constitution and the supremacy of the Spanish government and 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain
If the Scottish voters don't want to be in the Union anymore then why would you want them to be prisoners trapped in the UK with no legal method of voting to leave?
What does that achieve? Is the union worth more to you than the fact people don't want it? Isn't it better for the union to survive because people want it to survive?
They voted 55% to stay in the UK in the 2014 once in a generation referendum, tough.
There is also no evidence the vast majority of them want to leave the UK either, less than 50% back Yes including undecideds on the latest poll so any referendum would just be feeding the SNP tiger.
If the UK government agrees another legal referendum now not only is there a large risk of losing Scotland, though no certainty with 49% Yes including DKs on the latest poll but also they would be showing no willingness to stand up to the SNP who even if they lose indyref2 will demand indyref3 the next day exactly as many nationalists refused to accept the result of the 2014 referendum. The 2014 referendum must be respected as a once in a generation vote.
Even if a referendum was held by Sturgeon without UK government approval Boris could ignore it exactly as Rajoy ignored the unconstitutional 2017 Catalan referendum even though 92% of Catalan voters voted for independence on a 43% turnout.
That was the right decision by the Spanish PM to uphold the Spanish constitution and the supremacy of the Spanish government and 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain
You are going to have to adjust your story as this goes forward and yes, sometimes you are wrong
I am not, Boris will not risk his premiership by allowing a legal indyref2 that if lost would force him from No 10
Adam Parsons reporting from Brussels on Sky about the anger with AZ by the EU and the reduction from 80 million doses to 30 million. He said the EU are expecting AZ to be approved on Friday
He went on to say the controversy with AZ is far from over with further meetings on Wednesday
And significantly, he did not mention the 8% controversy at all and just indicated how desperate the EU is to get their hands on the AZ vaccine
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
Why the fuck has the BBC's Covid correspondent on the ten o'clock news not got the hang of weekend differences on vaccination numbers?
"Only 200,000 - but that might be down to the snow."
Amateurs. Rank amateurs, reporting on the biggest story of our times - and there are a hundred people on here (and probably a thousand lurkers) with a better understanding.
This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.
The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,
Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.
Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
People said the same when Alastair correctly called the Supreme Court ruling on the prorogation crisis.
Boris did not have a majority at Westminster then and was impotent as PM, he now has a majority of 80 in the Commons and is master of all he surveys based on the principle of our constitution that Crown in Parliament is sovereign
Crown in Parliament is not sovereign and hasn't been since 1973. There are multiple Parliaments, the Scottish have their own Parliament. We've scrapped the European Parliament but the Scottish one still exists.
The wildcat 2014 Catalonia Indepndence Referendum ultimately set nationalism back there despite a heavy handed response from Madrid. I don't see how a Scottish equivalent (ignored by Westminster and boycotted by Unionists) would be any more successful for the SNP.
I'm not so sure Boris will turn down the request flat but might just string out negotiations on a referendum in the hope the nationalist tide will start to ebb post-pandemic as the economy recovers and Brexit related disruption is ironed out.
I know Ian Blackford isn't exactly popular in Westminster but does the permanent outrage go down well in Scotland?
This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.
The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,
Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.
Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
What the heck is a "binding" referendum on a subject like this?
The EU Referendum wasn't "binding".
The question before SCOTUK will surely be whether they can lawfully hold a referendum - since under previous SCOTUK ruling all referenda are advisory, that element is moot.
If the SCOTUK rules in favour of the Scottish Parliament that they can legally hold a referendum then that is a game changer. It would be better not to go to Court than to lose that Court case because then the SCOTUK has essentially ruled it is a legal vote, not a wildcat one.
It seems odd to me that a fervent supporter of Brexit wants to take away an opportunity for the people of Scotland to experience the outplaying of some of its benefits, as opposed to just the immediate-term fissures.
Nats desperately want Indyref 2 now, I think because they lack confidence in the accuracy of their dire predictions, and they calculate that there will never be an angrier time than now, or a better opponent than Boris. I am less certain of why you want it now so desperately, you who believes that Brexit is going to be a success. I think five or six years is plenty of time to gage that. Within the context of a 300 year Union, it doesn't seem much? Your haste seems not to be about giving the Scottish people choice, but booting them out the door as quickly as possible. Why? Do you just plain not like them?
Philip Thompson is a Nationalist appeaser, I believe he even backed Scottish independence in 2014 in the hope of bringing forward 'glorious' Little England
Why the fuck has the BBC's Covid correspondent on the ten o'clock news not got the hang of weekend differences on vaccination numbers?
"Only 200,000 - but that might be down to the snow."
Amateurs. Rank amateurs, reporting on the biggest story of our times - and there are a hundred people on here (and probably a thousand lurkers) with a better understanding.
You say this like they haven't f##ked up regularly for 10 months....math is hard.
This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.
The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,
Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.
Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
What the heck is a "binding" referendum on a subject like this?
The EU Referendum wasn't "binding".
The question before SCOTUK will surely be whether they can lawfully hold a referendum - since under previous SCOTUK ruling all referenda are advisory, that element is moot.
If the SCOTUK rules in favour of the Scottish Parliament that they can legally hold a referendum then that is a game changer. It would be better not to go to Court than to lose that Court case because then the SCOTUK has essentially ruled it is a legal vote, not a wildcat one.
It seems odd to me that a fervent supporter of Brexit wants to take away an opportunity for the people of Scotland to experience the outplaying of some of its benefits, as opposed to just the immediate-term fissures.
Nats desperately want Indyref 2 now, I think because they lack confidence in the accuracy of their dire predictions, and they calculate that there will never be an angrier time than now, or a better opponent than Boris. I am less certain of why you want it now so desperately, you who believes that Brexit is going to be a success. I think five or six years is plenty of time to gage that. Within the context of a 300 year Union, it doesn't seem much? Your haste seems not to be about giving the Scottish people choice, but booting them out the door as quickly as possible. Why? Do you just plain not like them?
I believe in independence. Its why I voted Leave, its why I want the Scots to vote Yes. Independence works. Taking responsibility for yourself works. It is why I am a Conservative.
I don't believe in communitarianism. If the Scots want to be independent I say goodbye and good luck to them. I think it is for the best to be honest.
But either way more importantly than any of that, I believe in democracy. If they vote for it, they should get it.
This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.
The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,
Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.
Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
People said the same when Alastair correctly called the Supreme Court ruling on the prorogation crisis.
Boris did not have a majority at Westminster then and was impotent as PM, he now has a majority of 80 in the Commons and is master of all he surveys based on the principle of our constitution that Crown in Parliament is sovereign
Crown in Parliament is not sovereign and hasn't been since 1973. There are multiple Parliaments, the Scottish have their own Parliament. We've scrapped the European Parliament but the Scottish one still exists.
Yes it is, Holyrood is merely a creation of Westminster, technically Westminster could scrap Holyrood tomorrow even if politically that might not be advisable.
EEC/EU membership was also the result of Westminster statute, once Westminster voted to withdraw so we left and are no longer subject to EU rules.
(Since everyone ignored it on the last thread's discussion of data! )
As you can see from the Telegraph front page posted earlier in this thread, London has two more 3-star restaurants announced by Michelin tonight, bringing the capital to five and the country to seven.
Thanks Alastair for a very thought provoking piece. I disagree with your view that, if the UK Government does nothing, it looks timid. In fact, it's probably it's best policy. Say "there's no point dealing with you because whatever we negotiate, you will change the rules to suit your own view" and let the Scottish Government sort a referendum. Encourage Unionists to boycott it. Then have the position of the SNP having to come to your door asking for negotiation because, if it doesn't, most fund managers will be leaving Edinburgh ASAP.
I'm sure this whole renewed talk from Sturgeon has to do with the dispute over Salmond, and what she did / not do rightfully.
Yep. Far from looking timid, it's the only thing to do, because the wildcat scheme *depends* on the UK Government opposing this tooth and nail and getting into a big legal battle, with 'Boris vs. Sturgeon', which (Kle4 said rightly) Sturgeon could not lose - regardless of the legal outcome. Leaving them to get on with the white elephant with an air of faint bemusement deflates the whole thing.
You mean, better strategy than sending ModProd, Beefeaters and Bullingtonians northward to crush incipient rebellion?
I do. If only because the Union Jack waistcoats they would all be sporting are currently held up in customs.
Why the fuck has the BBC's Covid correspondent on the ten o'clock news not got the hang of weekend differences on vaccination numbers?
"Only 200,000 - but that might be down to the snow."
Amateurs. Rank amateurs, reporting on the biggest story of our times - and there are a hundred people on here (and probably a thousand lurkers) with a better understanding.
You say this like they haven't f##ked up regularly for 10 months....math is hard.
Oh hell no. HELL NO.
Maths is hard. We will not have any of that Americanisation here, we have standards on PB.
Saying 'math is hard' is worse than putting pineapple on pizza, which as you know is a terrible crime.
If the UK government agrees another referendum now not only is there a large risk of losing Scotland, though no certainty with 49% Yes including DKs on the latest poll but also they would be showing no willingness to stand up for the SNP who even if they lose indyref2 will demand indyref3 the next day exactly as many nationalists refused to accept the result on the 2014 referendum.
Even if a referendum was held by Sturgeon without UK government approval Boris could ignore it exactly as Rajoy ignored the unconstitutional 2017 Catalan referendum even though 92% of Catalan voters voted for independence on a 43% turnout.
That was the right decision by the Spanish PM to uphold the Spanish constitution and the supremacy of the Spanish government and 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain
If the Scottish voters don't want to be in the Union anymore then why would you want them to be prisoners trapped in the UK with no legal method of voting to leave?
What does that achieve? Is the union worth more to you than the fact people don't want it? Isn't it better for the union to survive because people want it to survive?
They voted 55% to stay in the UK in the 2014 once in a generation referendum, tough.
There is also no evidence the vast majority of them want to leave the UK either, less than 50% back Yes including undecideds on the latest poll so any referendum would just be feeding the SNP tiger.
"Tough".
Way to win friends and influence people. You voted to stay last time so tough shit, we don't care what you think for the next two decades and don't you forget it.
Driving a stake through the heart that the Scots would ever make the mistake of voting No again.
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
So, what should Labour do to be "more attractive"?
They tried a mad Marxist jew-baiter, your hero Corbyn, that didn't work, now they've tried a tedious centrist dad lawyer, also not working. What next?
Why the fuck has the BBC's Covid correspondent on the ten o'clock news not got the hang of weekend differences on vaccination numbers?
"Only 200,000 - but that might be down to the snow."
Amateurs. Rank amateurs, reporting on the biggest story of our times - and there are a hundred people on here (and probably a thousand lurkers) with a better understanding.
You say this like they haven't f##ked up regularly for 10 months....math is hard.
Oh hell no. HELL NO.
Maths is hard. We will not have any of that Americanisation here, we have standards on PB.
Saying 'math is hard' is worse than putting pineapple on pizza, which as you know is a terrible crime.
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
I have no need to stand upto him when there is no other option available
I voted Blair twice so give me an option and I will reconsider
This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.
The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,
Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.
Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
People said the same when Alastair correctly called the Supreme Court ruling on the prorogation crisis.
Boris did not have a majority at Westminster then and was impotent as PM, he now has a majority of 80 in the Commons and is master of all he surveys based on the principle of our constitution that Crown in Parliament is sovereign
Crown in Parliament is not sovereign and hasn't been since 1973. There are multiple Parliaments, the Scottish have their own Parliament. We've scrapped the European Parliament but the Scottish one still exists.
On this point HY is correct. The Scottish Parliament exists because the Westminster Parliament wills it. You can argue ad nauseam about that from a moral perspective (as people have been since the start of devolution,) but in a legal sense it is true.
If the UK government agrees another referendum now not only is there a large risk of losing Scotland, though no certainty with 49% Yes including DKs on the latest poll but also they would be showing no willingness to stand up for the SNP who even if they lose indyref2 will demand indyref3 the next day exactly as many nationalists refused to accept the result on the 2014 referendum.
Even if a referendum was held by Sturgeon without UK government approval Boris could ignore it exactly as Rajoy ignored the unconstitutional 2017 Catalan referendum even though 92% of Catalan voters voted for independence on a 43% turnout.
That was the right decision by the Spanish PM to uphold the Spanish constitution and the supremacy of the Spanish government and 4 years later Catalonia remains part of Spain
If the Scottish voters don't want to be in the Union anymore then why would you want them to be prisoners trapped in the UK with no legal method of voting to leave?
What does that achieve? Is the union worth more to you than the fact people don't want it? Isn't it better for the union to survive because people want it to survive?
Wasn't that the attitude of the Copperheads who opposed Lincoln during the US Civil War?
This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.
The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,
Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.
Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
What the heck is a "binding" referendum on a subject like this?
The EU Referendum wasn't "binding".
The question before SCOTUK will surely be whether they can lawfully hold a referendum - since under previous SCOTUK ruling all referenda are advisory, that element is moot.
If the SCOTUK rules in favour of the Scottish Parliament that they can legally hold a referendum then that is a game changer. It would be better not to go to Court than to lose that Court case because then the SCOTUK has essentially ruled it is a legal vote, not a wildcat one.
Hmm, I wonder whether there's a hidden message in that acronym.
Why the fuck has the BBC's Covid correspondent on the ten o'clock news not got the hang of weekend differences on vaccination numbers?
"Only 200,000 - but that might be down to the snow."
Amateurs. Rank amateurs, reporting on the biggest story of our times - and there are a hundred people on here (and probably a thousand lurkers) with a better understanding.
You say this like they haven't f##ked up regularly for 10 months....math is hard.
It isn't math - it's using things like last 24 hours when its clear where the figures come from and what they relate to.
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
I have no need to stand upto him when there is no other option available
I voted Blair twice so give me an option and I will reconsider
There's a wealth of talent in the Conservative Party. Kind, competent, serious, and sensible men and women. So you're wrong. There are plenty of alternatives.
This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.
The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,
Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.
Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
People said the same when Alastair correctly called the Supreme Court ruling on the prorogation crisis.
Boris did not have a majority at Westminster then and was impotent as PM, he now has a majority of 80 in the Commons and is master of all he surveys based on the principle of our constitution that Crown in Parliament is sovereign
Crown in Parliament is not sovereign and hasn't been since 1973. There are multiple Parliaments, the Scottish have their own Parliament. We've scrapped the European Parliament but the Scottish one still exists.
On this point HY is correct. The Scottish Parliament exists because the Westminster Parliament wills it. You can argue ad nauseum about that from a moral perspective (as people have been since the start of devolution,) but in a legal sense it is true.
But on this point he is wrong.
Westminster could arguably abolish the Scottish Parliament but it has not done so. Unless it takes the step of doing so then the Scottish Parliament exists and is sovereign over issues that it can pass laws on, which the SCOTUK may or may not define as including referenda.
Simply having the hypothetical ability to abolish something, does not make it abolished unless you choose to actually do so.
This is just like the EU all over again. Some like TOPPING claimed that because the UK could vote to leave the EU the UK was "always sovereign" and therefore EU laws weren't above UK laws because we were choosing to be in the EU. De jure true maybe but de facto false - the EU laws were above UK laws unless or until we actually took the step of voting to leave.
Unless or until the UK votes to abolish Holyrood the fact that it "could" is meaningless.
This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.
The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,
Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.
Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
What the heck is a "binding" referendum on a subject like this?
The EU Referendum wasn't "binding".
The question before SCOTUK will surely be whether they can lawfully hold a referendum - since under previous SCOTUK ruling all referenda are advisory, that element is moot.
If the SCOTUK rules in favour of the Scottish Parliament that they can legally hold a referendum then that is a game changer. It would be better not to go to Court than to lose that Court case because then the SCOTUK has essentially ruled it is a legal vote, not a wildcat one.
It seems odd to me that a fervent supporter of Brexit wants to take away an opportunity for the people of Scotland to experience the outplaying of some of its benefits, as opposed to just the immediate-term fissures.
Nats desperately want Indyref 2 now, I think because they lack confidence in the accuracy of their dire predictions, and they calculate that there will never be an angrier time than now, or a better opponent than Boris. I am less certain of why you want it now so desperately, you who believes that Brexit is going to be a success. I think five or six years is plenty of time to gage that. Within the context of a 300 year Union, it doesn't seem much? Your haste seems not to be about giving the Scottish people choice, but booting them out the door as quickly as possible. Why? Do you just plain not like them?
I believe in independence. Its why I voted Leave, its why I want the Scots to vote Yes. Independence works. Taking responsibility for yourself works. It is why I am a Conservative.
I don't believe in communitarianism. If the Scots want to be independent I say goodbye and good luck to them. I think it is for the best to be honest.
But either way more importantly than any of that, I believe in democracy. If they vote for it, they should get it.
I don't really see how the Scots are not 'taking responsibility for themselves' within the context of the UK. They are doing that as much as anyone else here is. It seems rather patronising to suggest otherwise.
You are entitled to your belief, but I am interested to note that there isn't really what I would call a coherent argument here behind your support for Sindy - certainly not your being in lockstep with the SNP's timings over it. But oh well - all part of PB's rich tapestry.
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
So, what should Labour do to be "more attractive"?
They tried a mad Marxist jew-baiter, your hero Corbyn, that didn't work, now they've tried a tedious centrist dad lawyer, also not working. What next?
A Blairite I imagine if Starmer loses, maybe Liz Kendall.
However for now Labour has replaced Corbyn with a more telegenic Brownite, that does not mean they are heading for a landslide defeat a la Corbyn 2019 but nor are they likely to get a landslide victory a la Blair but Starmer might manage a hung parliament a la Brown 2010, perhaps this time forming a government with SNP and LD support.
This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.
The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,
Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.
Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
What the heck is a "binding" referendum on a subject like this?
The EU Referendum wasn't "binding".
The question before SCOTUK will surely be whether they can lawfully hold a referendum - since under previous SCOTUK ruling all referenda are advisory, that element is moot.
If the SCOTUK rules in favour of the Scottish Parliament that they can legally hold a referendum then that is a game changer. It would be better not to go to Court than to lose that Court case because then the SCOTUK has essentially ruled it is a legal vote, not a wildcat one.
It seems odd to me that a fervent supporter of Brexit wants to take away an opportunity for the people of Scotland to experience the outplaying of some of its benefits, as opposed to just the immediate-term fissures.
Nats desperately want Indyref 2 now, I think because they lack confidence in the accuracy of their dire predictions, and they calculate that there will never be an angrier time than now, or a better opponent than Boris. I am less certain of why you want it now so desperately, you who believes that Brexit is going to be a success. I think five or six years is plenty of time to gage that. Within the context of a 300 year Union, it doesn't seem much? Your haste seems not to be about giving the Scottish people choice, but booting them out the door as quickly as possible. Why? Do you just plain not like them?
I believe in independence. Its why I voted Leave, its why I want the Scots to vote Yes. Independence works. Taking responsibility for yourself works. It is why I am a Conservative.
I don't believe in communitarianism. If the Scots want to be independent I say goodbye and good luck to them. I think it is for the best to be honest.
But either way more importantly than any of that, I believe in democracy. If they vote for it, they should get it.
What if I want to be "independent"? Or Cornwall? Or Shropshire? Hackney? A dog in the Wirral? The East Riding of old Yorkshire?
It might be appealing, in the moment. But at some point a country has to say: No, we are a country, we are unified, we have various traditions and cultures, but the centre must hold. And stay united. Otherwise we will hang apart, if we do not hang together.
Britain has arguably done a worse job of this than any other European country. We are probably the most successful big European nation over the last 300 years, judged in terms of average wealth over time, and being peaceful, safe, democratic and not-being-conquered. The fact we have allowed secessionist movements to develop, despite this success, is a total failure of the British elite, which lacks confidence in its own amazing brand.
Right now, too many posh Brits want the Scots to secede, just to punish the country for voting Leave (I accept your motivations are different)
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
I have no need to stand upto him when there is no other option available
I voted Blair twice so give me an option and I will reconsider
There's a wealth of talent in the Conservative Party. Kind, competent, serious, and sensible men and women. So you're wrong. There are plenty of alternatives.
I am one such and I have said often enough that Boris is not a covid PM
One minister tells me the plan is for Johnson to announce that he considers the UK’s existing constitutional architecture is not working. Whether these issues are to be remitted to a constitutional commission of some kind, perhaps similar to the one proposed by the Labour leader Keir Starmer in December, will soon be made clear. These discussions are described as “very live”. But the target audience is clear: the voters whom ministers describe as the majority of the electorate in all four parts of the UK who do not have a passion for breaking up Britain.
Until recently, the Johnson government’s policy towards all this was to just say no. But that is changing now. There is panic and realism in the new approach. The SNP is formidable but not unbeatable. Divisions between reformists and ultras – between Sturgeon and Alex Salmond and their respective backers – may change the mood. If Sturgeon or any successor is pushed into calling an illegal referendum, it would trigger a widespread boycott that could open the way for different politics.
It is an enormous risk, and time is running out fast.
Ignoring the SNP's referendum wheeze is a bit like lockdown - one can help rid the world of a 'orrible disease just by staying at home.
I believe you fastidiously stayed at home last time out because you felt it wasn't your beeswax, do you now feel Scottish enough to stay at home for tactical electoral reasons? Welcome! Be sure to get a window poster making it clear what your motivation is.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?
We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'
It is just not acceptable
Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.
Breathe, then think about this.
It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.
No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)
There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.
There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.
The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
That is an excellent analysis.
My guess is that you are correct in that it is cock up over conspiracy, but still...
This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.
The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,
Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.
Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
People said the same when Alastair correctly called the Supreme Court ruling on the prorogation crisis.
Boris did not have a majority at Westminster then and was impotent as PM, he now has a majority of 80 in the Commons and is master of all he surveys based on the principle of our constitution that Crown in Parliament is sovereign
Crown in Parliament is not sovereign and hasn't been since 1973. There are multiple Parliaments, the Scottish have their own Parliament. We've scrapped the European Parliament but the Scottish one still exists.
On this point HY is correct. The Scottish Parliament exists because the Westminster Parliament wills it. You can argue ad nauseum about that from a moral perspective (as people have been since the start of devolution,) but in a legal sense it is true.
But on this point he is wrong.
Westminster could arguably abolish the Scottish Parliament but it has not done so. Unless it takes the step of doing so then the Scottish Parliament exists and is sovereign over issues that it can pass laws on, which the SCOTUK may or may not define as including referenda.
Simply having the hypothetical ability to abolish something, does not make it abolished unless you choose to actually do so.
This is just like the EU all over again. Some like TOPPING claimed that because the UK could vote to leave the EU the UK was "always sovereign" and therefore EU laws weren't above UK laws because we were choosing to be in the EU. De jure true maybe but de facto false - the EU laws were above UK laws unless or until we actually took the step of voting to leave.
Unless or until the UK votes to abolish Holyrood the fact that it "could" is meaningless.
However even if Holyrood continues in existence Westminster still legally under the Scotland Act 1998 has the decisive say on the Union
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
So, what should Labour do to be "more attractive"?
They tried a mad Marxist jew-baiter, your hero Corbyn, that didn't work, now they've tried a tedious centrist dad lawyer, also not working. What next?
They need a Jacinda.
And, of course, the UK Labour party is full of photogenic, under-forty, female MPs, who could easily do an Adern if given the chance -- and rout Boris.
But, alas, Labour is the most misogynistic of our parties, and so they all voted for Sir Keir PersonalityBypass.
Why the fuck has the BBC's Covid correspondent on the ten o'clock news not got the hang of weekend differences on vaccination numbers?
"Only 200,000 - but that might be down to the snow."
Amateurs. Rank amateurs, reporting on the biggest story of our times - and there are a hundred people on here (and probably a thousand lurkers) with a better understanding.
It's very rare than I would read a select committee report, but I have at least done it - I don't watch PMQs because I already follow a lot of political theatre so have no need to do that.
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
So, what should Labour do to be "more attractive"?
They tried a mad Marxist jew-baiter, your hero Corbyn, that didn't work, now they've tried a tedious centrist dad lawyer, also not working. What next?
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
So, what should Labour do to be "more attractive"?
They tried a mad Marxist jew-baiter, your hero Corbyn, that didn't work, now they've tried a tedious centrist dad lawyer, also not working. What next?
1. Corbyn is not my hero and I have never voted Labour. Direct your comments to Labour supporters. 2. Your antisemitic comments on here in recent days haven't been forgotten. A wiser person would have apologised.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
So wIThy have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?
We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'
It is just not acceptable
Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.
Breathe, then think about this.
It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.
No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)
There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.
There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.
The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
That is an excellent analysis.
My guess is that you are correct in that it is cock up over conspiracy, but still...
It is a viciously pernicious cock-up, at just the worst time. German media is notoriously complacent, fat, apathetic and PC, and over-protected, but really. IF this is a cock-up, people should be sacked.
P33 “ There is limited information available on efficacy in participants aged 65 or over, although there is nothing to suggest lack of protection. In this subpopulation, there were only two COVID-19 cases in the primary analysis. When considering all cases from dose 1, there were 2 cases on AZD1222 compared to 8 on control (VE=76%), although this result was associated with a wide confidence interval.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 95% confidence interval ranged as far down as 8% for that. Someone who can do the stats off the top of their head can tell us.
That is an excellent point: given a sample size of 10, your confidence range is going to be utterly ginormous.
McConnell is basically filibustering the Dem win and Manchin and Sinema haven't worked out they will be the most powerful people in the Senate if they tell him to go fuck himself.
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
So, what should Labour do to be "more attractive"?
They tried a mad Marxist jew-baiter, your hero Corbyn, that didn't work, now they've tried a tedious centrist dad lawyer, also not working. What next?
They need a Jacinda.
And, of course, the UK Labour party is full of photogenic, under-forty, female MPs, who could easily do an Adern if given the chance -- and rout Boris.
But, alas, Labour is the most misogynistic of our parties, and so they all voted for Sir Keir PersonalityBypass.
Jacinda of course became PM in 2017 having come second on both votes and seats behind the governing Nationals.
She only came to power through deals with the Greens and NZ First, Starmer could well become PM on similar backroom deals if Boris loses his majority in 2024
It must be because Boris is so terrible that the furious public wish to punish him for his terribleness by repeatedly awarding him thumping shares of the vote....
It's very rare than I would read a select committee report, but I have at least done it - I don't watch PMWs because I already follow a lot of political theatre so have no need to do that.
I have looked at them on occasion where the topic was of particular interest to me but it is not a regular event. I very much appreciate and benefit from the degree of knowledge on this site and the interesting links that it throws up.
This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.
The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,
Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.
Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
What the heck is a "binding" referendum on a subject like this?
The EU Referendum wasn't "binding".
The question before SCOTUK will surely be whether they can lawfully hold a referendum - since under previous SCOTUK ruling all referenda are advisory, that element is moot.
If the SCOTUK rules in favour of the Scottish Parliament that they can legally hold a referendum then that is a game changer. It would be better not to go to Court than to lose that Court case because then the SCOTUK has essentially ruled it is a legal vote, not a wildcat one.
It seems odd to me that a fervent supporter of Brexit wants to take away an opportunity for the people of Scotland to experience the outplaying of some of its benefits, as opposed to just the immediate-term fissures.
Nats desperately want Indyref 2 now, I think because they lack confidence in the accuracy of their dire predictions, and they calculate that there will never be an angrier time than now, or a better opponent than Boris. I am less certain of why you want it now so desperately, you who believes that Brexit is going to be a success. I think five or six years is plenty of time to gage that. Within the context of a 300 year Union, it doesn't seem much? Your haste seems not to be about giving the Scottish people choice, but booting them out the door as quickly as possible. Why? Do you just plain not like them?
I believe in independence. Its why I voted Leave, its why I want the Scots to vote Yes. Independence works. Taking responsibility for yourself works. It is why I am a Conservative.
I don't believe in communitarianism. If the Scots want to be independent I say goodbye and good luck to them. I think it is for the best to be honest.
But either way more importantly than any of that, I believe in democracy. If they vote for it, they should get it.
I don't really see how the Scots are not 'taking responsibility for themselves' within the context of the UK. They are doing that as much as anyone else here is. It seems rather patronising to suggest otherwise.
You are entitled to your belief, but I am interested to note that there isn't really what I would call a coherent argument here behind your support for Sindy - certainly not your being in lockstep with the SNP's timings over it. But oh well - all part of PB's rich tapestry.
I'm not in lockstep with the SNP's timings - I have said I respect the decision of the Scottish electorate. I don't get a vote on this subject.
If the Scottish electorate give the SNP a majority on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge the such is democracy. If they deny the SNP a majority then that too is democracy. That is for the Scottish voters to decide and I don't have a vote in that election any more than I had a vote in who should be Labour leader.
As for "taking responsibility for themselves" then the issue is that for any issue the goto response is to blame London, even if its a mess of their own making. That's not taking responsibility for yourselves. It is the same argument as to why Brexit was a good idea because British politicians could no longer hide between blaming Brussels. Exactly the same principle.
Why the fuck has the BBC's Covid correspondent on the ten o'clock news not got the hang of weekend differences on vaccination numbers?
"Only 200,000 - but that might be down to the snow."
Amateurs. Rank amateurs, reporting on the biggest story of our times - and there are a hundred people on here (and probably a thousand lurkers) with a better understanding.
I bet he studied PPE at Oxford.
We must make a complete list of the wankers who did PPE at Oxford -- I found another one the other day.
Mark Reckless (PPE Christ Church).
Come the Senedd elections 2021, I can't expect a decent or competent Government to take office thereafter.
But, at least, please, please God, give me the joy of seeing Mark Reckless booted out of Wales.
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
So, what should Labour do to be "more attractive"?
They tried a mad Marxist jew-baiter, your hero Corbyn, that didn't work, now they've tried a tedious centrist dad lawyer, also not working. What next?
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
I have no need to stand upto him when there is no other option available
I voted Blair twice so give me an option and I will reconsider
There's a wealth of talent in the Conservative Party. Kind, competent, serious, and sensible men and women. So you're wrong. There are plenty of alternatives.
I am one such and I have said often enough that Boris is not a covid PM
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
So, what should Labour do to be "more attractive"?
They tried a mad Marxist jew-baiter, your hero Corbyn, that didn't work, now they've tried a tedious centrist dad lawyer, also not working. What next?
1. Corbyn is not my hero and I have never voted Labour. Direct your comments to Labour supporters. 2. Your antisemitic comments on here in recent days haven't been forgotten. A wiser person would have apologised.
You're a self confessed leftie and cranky anti-Semite, seeking to divert attention from your obsession. Your attempts to distract from this are noted.
Would love to have been a fly on the wall in the AZ boardroom today!
The Pfizer one too given the threat of an EU export ban on their Belgian manufacturing.
Perhaps the UK, US and Canada could establish an international zone around the Pfizer plant and nearby port in Antwerp, just to ensure smooth delivery.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
So wIThy have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?
We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'
It is just not acceptable
Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.
Breathe, then think about this.
It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.
No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)
There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.
There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.
The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
That is an excellent analysis.
My guess is that you are correct in that it is cock up over conspiracy, but still...
It is a viciously pernicious cock-up, at just the worst time. German media is notoriously complacent, fat, apathetic and PC, and over-protected, but really. IF this is a cock-up, people should be sacked.
You post it as if PC were a bad thing. PC = Informed politeness; I see nothing wrong with that.
Self-reported TV viewing figures don't work, because people say they watched David Attenborough when they mean they would have done but for some unique and utterly anomalous circumstance which prevented them. And they say they didn't watch Coronation Street, because it was just on the telly when they happened to be in the room.
I guess it's a massive problem for Germany to have a vaccine that isn't efficacious for all age bands, given their health service has no idea how old individual citizens are from their records.
One minister tells me the plan is for Johnson to announce that he considers the UK’s existing constitutional architecture is not working. Whether these issues are to be remitted to a constitutional commission of some kind, perhaps similar to the one proposed by the Labour leader Keir Starmer in December, will soon be made clear. These discussions are described as “very live”. But the target audience is clear: the voters whom ministers describe as the majority of the electorate in all four parts of the UK who do not have a passion for breaking up Britain.
Until recently, the Johnson government’s policy towards all this was to just say no. But that is changing now. There is panic and realism in the new approach. The SNP is formidable but not unbeatable. Divisions between reformists and ultras – between Sturgeon and Alex Salmond and their respective backers – may change the mood. If Sturgeon or any successor is pushed into calling an illegal referendum, it would trigger a widespread boycott that could open the way for different politics.
It is an enormous risk, and time is running out fast.
Ignoring the SNP's referendum wheeze is a bit like lockdown - one can help rid the world of a 'orrible disease just by staying at home.
I believe you fastidiously stayed at home last time out because you felt it wasn't your beeswax, do you now feel Scottish enough to stay at home for tactical electoral reasons? Welcome! Be sure to get a window poster making it clear what your motivation is.
As I said, I would vote in a new Indyref (a legally binding one). And I don't think it's really about feeling Scottish. I have nothing but admiration and love for Scotland and its people, but I don't think I feel any more Scottish than I did when I arrived - though I have learned a lot and gained a far greater understanding, great love of Scotch whisky and Scottish food, and lots of wonderful Scottish friends. For me it's more about being invested and committed here. I suppose you'd have to live in England for a while to understand the perspective. You are part of something but not.
If the joke ref happens, I won't participate. It won't be a big statement, I'll just have other stuff on.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?
We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'
It is just not acceptable
Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.
Breathe, then think about this.
It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.
No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)
There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.
There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.
The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
That is an excellent analysis.
My guess is that you are correct in that it is cock up over conspiracy, but still...
My thought on reading it was that if we are lucky the press might give a simplified version of the demolition of the German "source" in 2-3 days, maybe next Sunday.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
So wIThy have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?
We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'
It is just not acceptable
Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.
Breathe, then think about this.
It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.
No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)
There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.
There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.
The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
That is an excellent analysis.
My guess is that you are correct in that it is cock up over conspiracy, but still...
It is a viciously pernicious cock-up, at just the worst time. German media is notoriously complacent, fat, apathetic and PC, and over-protected, but really. IF this is a cock-up, people should be sacked.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
So wIThy have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?
We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'
It is just not acceptable
Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.
Breathe, then think about this.
It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.
No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)
There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.
There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.
The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
That is an excellent analysis.
My guess is that you are correct in that it is cock up over conspiracy, but still...
It is a viciously pernicious cock-up, at just the worst time. German media is notoriously complacent, fat, apathetic and PC, and over-protected, but really. IF this is a cock-up, people should be sacked.
You post it as if PC were a bad thing. PC = Informed Politeness; I see nothing wrong with that.
A fair point, from the British perspective, but we are talking about Germany. I have friends who work for German media, they report that it is relentlessly, absurdly PC - there is no attempt to provide balance. eg if there is a report about immigration, it is ALWAYS positive, unless it literally impossible to do otherwise (eg the Koln NYE riots).
The BBC looks positively centrist in comparison, or so I am told, by lefty friends who are still shocked by the outrageous leftiness of German media.
Of course, their history must be taken as context. And it is quite a context.
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
So, what should Labour do to be "more attractive"?
They tried a mad Marxist jew-baiter, your hero Corbyn, that didn't work, now they've tried a tedious centrist dad lawyer, also not working. What next?
1. Corbyn is not my hero and I have never voted Labour. Direct your comments to Labour supporters. 2. Your antisemitic comments on here in recent days haven't been forgotten. A wiser person would have apologised.
You're a self confessed leftie and cranky anti-Semite, seeking to divert attention from your obsession. Your attempts to distract from this are noted.
You were spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories. I condemned you for it.
And I can prove it by linking to your comment so people don't have to take my word for it. Whereas you're just a gaslighting liar.
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
I have no need to stand upto him when there is no other option available
I voted Blair twice so give me an option and I will reconsider
There's a wealth of talent in the Conservative Party. Kind, competent, serious, and sensible men and women. So you're wrong. There are plenty of alternatives.
I am one such and I have said often enough that Boris is not a covid PM
"Modesty? One of my many fine qualities!"
I am sure my good lady of 57 years would endorse my comment as would many others including all my employees good wishes letters to me on my retirement
Because a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And, b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
So, what should Labour do to be "more attractive"?
They tried a mad Marxist jew-baiter, your hero Corbyn, that didn't work, now they've tried a tedious centrist dad lawyer, also not working. What next?
They need a Jacinda.
And, of course, the UK Labour party is full of photogenic, under-forty, female MPs, who could easily do an Adern if given the chance -- and rout Boris.
But, alas, Labour is the most misogynistic of our parties, and so they all voted for Sir Keir PersonalityBypass.
2017 New Zealand general election result
Nationals 44% Ardern's Labour 37%.
So Starmer Labour is actually doing better than Ardern Labour did when Ardern first became PM.
Why the fuck has the BBC's Covid correspondent on the ten o'clock news not got the hang of weekend differences on vaccination numbers?
"Only 200,000 - but that might be down to the snow."
Amateurs. Rank amateurs, reporting on the biggest story of our times - and there are a hundred people on here (and probably a thousand lurkers) with a better understanding.
Amateurs is the wrong word.
They are not amateurs - this is their full time job for which they get paid.
Anyone tracking AstraZeneca's share price, there could be a killing to be made here.
FWIW I cannot see a successful company with a market capitalisation of $150 billion playing silly beggars offer the Covid vaccine, it would permanently damage their brand.
Oddly just last week the head of the German regulator praised the efficacy of AZ so this would have to be a massive about turn from the EMA.
No, it is perfectly possible to say AZN is moderately effective in younger age groups, but unproven effectiveness in older age groups.
So why have we used millions of the effective in oldies Pfizer in people under 65 and millions of potentially useless AZN to over 80s?
We really need to re evaluate quickly unless these reports are BS
You are still using the highly irresponsible language of 'potentially useless AZN'
It is just not acceptable
Beyond that, the German report is obviously false.
Breathe, then think about this.
It quotes a specific efficacy estimate of 8% for people over 65.
No efficacy value exists in the published phase 3 trial report for older cohorts (moreover, even within that there is no "over 65" group. Participants are grouped into three age cohorts, 18-55, 56-69 and 70+)
There have been no other published trials of the vaccine.
There has been insufficient time to assess the efficacy of the vaccine in older people during the rollout, because it only began recently, most recipients won't have had time to build immunity based on the first shot let alone had the second, and it will take more time after that to discover how many recipients have subsequently fallen ill, and what degree of efficacy this value implies.
The 8% figure cannot, therefore, have any basis in evidence, and neither can any broader suggestion that low efficacy in older people has been proven. Either the report has been fabricated, the source was telling porkies, or the source grossly misinterpreted data with which he/she/they were presented. At a guess, the latter explanation seems the most likely.
That is an excellent analysis.
My guess is that you are correct in that it is cock up over conspiracy, but still...
My thought on reading it was that if we are lucky the press might give a simplified version of the demolition of the German "source" in 2-3 days, maybe next Sunday.
Would love to have been a fly on the wall in the AZ boardroom today!
The Pfizer one too given the threat of an EU export ban on their Belgian manufacturing.
Perhaps the UK, US and Canada could establish an international zone around the Pfizer plant and nearby port in Antwerp, just to ensure smooth delivery.
AIUI the Canadian Government is likely to collapse this year. Justin Trudeau may have more pressing concerns at the moment than planning an invasion of Belgium.
Biden might be persuadable if they cut off part of the Americans' vaccine supplies, though.
I had haggis, tatties and neeps for tea tonight. Very good it was too with just a dram of whisky on the haggis. I miss the Burns night celebrations, its an excellent night usually.
Would love to have been a fly on the wall in the AZ boardroom today!
The Pfizer one too given the threat of an EU export ban on their Belgian manufacturing.
Perhaps the UK, US and Canada could establish an international zone around the Pfizer plant and nearby port in Antwerp, just to ensure smooth delivery.
AIUI the Canadian Government is likely to collapse this year. Justin Trudeau may have more pressing concerns at the moment than planning an invasion of Belgium. .
Would love to have been a fly on the wall in the AZ boardroom today!
The Pfizer one too given the threat of an EU export ban on their Belgian manufacturing.
Perhaps the UK, US and Canada could establish an international zone around the Pfizer plant and nearby port in Antwerp, just to ensure smooth delivery.
AIUI the Canadian Government is likely to collapse this year. Justin Trudeau may have more pressing concerns at the moment than planning an invasion of Belgium.
Biden might be persuadable if they cut off part of the Americans' vaccine supplies, though.
It isn't, the NDP will still back the Liberals on a confidence vote.
Would love to have been a fly on the wall in the AZ boardroom today!
The Pfizer one too given the threat of an EU export ban on their Belgian manufacturing.
Perhaps the UK, US and Canada could establish an international zone around the Pfizer plant and nearby port in Antwerp, just to ensure smooth delivery.
AIUI the Canadian Government is likely to collapse this year. Justin Trudeau may have more pressing concerns at the moment than planning an invasion of Belgium. .
Maybe he can outsource it to HYUFD ?
Some Canadian expeditionary forces? I'm sure @HYUFD can deal with two fronts simultaneously.
Would love to have been a fly on the wall in the AZ boardroom today!
The Pfizer one too given the threat of an EU export ban on their Belgian manufacturing.
Perhaps the UK, US and Canada could establish an international zone around the Pfizer plant and nearby port in Antwerp, just to ensure smooth delivery.
AIUI the Canadian Government is likely to collapse this year. Justin Trudeau may have more pressing concerns at the moment than planning an invasion of Belgium.
Biden might be persuadable if they cut off part of the Americans' vaccine supplies, though.
Saw news stories about possible government collapse in Canada a few weeks ago, thought maybe things had stabilised. Always good, as an outsider, to see more elections!
This threader is sophistry and pish in equal measure.
The matter will end, maybe after years, with the SCOTUK, which will surely rule in favour of Westminster having reserved powers to allow a binding referendum,
Sturgeon will then have the dilemma of calling a wildcat "advisory" vote (and risking a definite boycott and a Catalan outcome, where support for Catindy has now fallen), or biding her time, and waiting for a parliament more amenable in 2024.
Will this attitude from London provoke increased support for indy? Yes, quite possibly. But then, if London looks likely to lose a vote in 2022-2023, then it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding firm, and hoping for a change of mood.
What the heck is a "binding" referendum on a subject like this?
The EU Referendum wasn't "binding".
The question before SCOTUK will surely be whether they can lawfully hold a referendum - since under previous SCOTUK ruling all referenda are advisory, that element is moot.
If the SCOTUK rules in favour of the Scottish Parliament that they can legally hold a referendum then that is a game changer. It would be better not to go to Court than to lose that Court case because then the SCOTUK has essentially ruled it is a legal vote, not a wildcat one.
It seems odd to me that a fervent supporter of Brexit wants to take away an opportunity for the people of Scotland to experience the outplaying of some of its benefits, as opposed to just the immediate-term fissures.
Nats desperately want Indyref 2 now, I think because they lack confidence in the accuracy of their dire predictions, and they calculate that there will never be an angrier time than now, or a better opponent than Boris. I am less certain of why you want it now so desperately, you who believes that Brexit is going to be a success. I think five or six years is plenty of time to gage that. Within the context of a 300 year Union, it doesn't seem much? Your haste seems not to be about giving the Scottish people choice, but booting them out the door as quickly as possible. Why? Do you just plain not like them?
I believe in independence. Its why I voted Leave, its why I want the Scots to vote Yes. Independence works. Taking responsibility for yourself works. It is why I am a Conservative.
I don't believe in communitarianism. If the Scots want to be independent I say goodbye and good luck to them. I think it is for the best to be honest.
But either way more importantly than any of that, I believe in democracy. If they vote for it, they should get it.
I don't really see how the Scots are not 'taking responsibility for themselves' within the context of the UK. They are doing that as much as anyone else here is. It seems rather patronising to suggest otherwise.
You are entitled to your belief, but I am interested to note that there isn't really what I would call a coherent argument here behind your support for Sindy - certainly not your being in lockstep with the SNP's timings over it. But oh well - all part of PB's rich tapestry.
I'm not in lockstep with the SNP's timings - I have said I respect the decision of the Scottish electorate. I don't get a vote on this subject.
If the Scottish electorate give the SNP a majority on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge the such is democracy. If they deny the SNP a majority then that too is democracy. That is for the Scottish voters to decide and I don't have a vote in that election any more than I had a vote in who should be Labour leader.
As for "taking responsibility for themselves" then the issue is that for any issue the goto response is to blame London, even if its a mess of their own making. That's not taking responsibility for yourselves. It is the same argument as to why Brexit was a good idea because British politicians could no longer hide between blaming Brussels. Exactly the same principle.
Just popped in to have a quick look and find another - again interesting - header in indyref 2. Thank you.
BTW the prorogation crisis should have made people realise Scots law also exists, so that is another factor (as Scotuk doesn't like striking it down just cos English law is different, as we also saw re prorogation).
And I won't comment in detail on the tone of some of the commentary on here, which is little short of colonialist in its thinking or at least its desperate hopes - for what else is saying No to a politically legitimate vote?
I had haggis, tatties and neeps for tea tonight. Very good it was too with just a dram of whisky on the haggis. I miss the Burns night celebrations, its an excellent night usually.
I had that too, though not the dram on the haggis: I had that later.
Comments
There is also no evidence the vast majority of them want to leave the UK either, less than 50% back Yes including undecideds on the latest poll so any referendum would just be feeding the SNP tiger.
He went on to say the controversy with AZ is far from over with further meetings on Wednesday
And significantly, he did not mention the 8% controversy at all and just indicated how desperate the EU is to get their hands on the AZ vaccine
a) Conservatives who know that Boris Johnson's government is corrupt, inept, vindictive, stupid, and immoral lack the backbone to stand up to him. That is, people like you. And,
b) Because Labour are not an attractive enough alternative.
"Only 200,000 - but that might be down to the snow."
Amateurs. Rank amateurs, reporting on the biggest story of our times - and there are a hundred people on here (and probably a thousand lurkers) with a better understanding.
I don't believe in communitarianism. If the Scots want to be independent I say goodbye and good luck to them. I think it is for the best to be honest.
But either way more importantly than any of that, I believe in democracy. If they vote for it, they should get it.
EEC/EU membership was also the result of Westminster statute, once Westminster voted to withdraw so we left and are no longer subject to EU rules.
Maths is hard. We will not have any of that Americanisation here, we have standards on PB.
Saying 'math is hard' is worse than putting pineapple on pizza, which as you know is a terrible crime.
Way to win friends and influence people. You voted to stay last time so tough shit, we don't care what you think for the next two decades and don't you forget it.
Driving a stake through the heart that the Scots would ever make the mistake of voting No again.
They tried a mad Marxist jew-baiter, your hero Corbyn, that didn't work, now they've tried a tedious centrist dad lawyer, also not working. What next?
I voted Blair twice so give me an option and I will reconsider
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1353829237933957120/photo/1
Glad they are admitting they have taken leave of their senses while asking it.
Bernard - Actually, if there's only one item, it's an agenDUM.
Humphrey - I don't think the Prime Minister's got as far as the second declension.
This is not one of them.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeS1F1uD7tiIDmtpxcfW8gqSbXJviKJbMEZTWESNFZqMcpXcA/viewform?usp=sf_link
Westminster could arguably abolish the Scottish Parliament but it has not done so. Unless it takes the step of doing so then the Scottish Parliament exists and is sovereign over issues that it can pass laws on, which the SCOTUK may or may not define as including referenda.
Simply having the hypothetical ability to abolish something, does not make it abolished unless you choose to actually do so.
This is just like the EU all over again. Some like TOPPING claimed that because the UK could vote to leave the EU the UK was "always sovereign" and therefore EU laws weren't above UK laws because we were choosing to be in the EU. De jure true maybe but de facto false - the EU laws were above UK laws unless or until we actually took the step of voting to leave.
Unless or until the UK votes to abolish Holyrood the fact that it "could" is meaningless.
You are entitled to your belief, but I am interested to note that there isn't really what I would call a coherent argument here behind your support for Sindy - certainly not your being in lockstep with the SNP's timings over it. But oh well - all part of PB's rich tapestry.
However for now Labour has replaced Corbyn with a more telegenic Brownite, that does not mean they are heading for a landslide defeat a la Corbyn 2019 but nor are they likely to get a landslide victory a la Blair but Starmer might manage a hung parliament a la Brown 2010, perhaps this time forming a government with SNP and LD support.
It might be appealing, in the moment. But at some point a country has to say: No, we are a country, we are unified, we have various traditions and cultures, but the centre must hold. And stay united. Otherwise we will hang apart, if we do not hang together.
Britain has arguably done a worse job of this than any other European country. We are probably the most successful big European nation over the last 300 years, judged in terms of average wealth over time, and being peaceful, safe, democratic and not-being-conquered. The fact we have allowed secessionist movements to develop, despite this success, is a total failure of the British elite, which lacks confidence in its own amazing brand.
Right now, too many posh Brits want the Scots to secede, just to punish the country for voting Leave (I accept your motivations are different)
My guess is that you are correct in that it is cock up over conspiracy, but still...
And, of course, the UK Labour party is full of photogenic, under-forty, female MPs, who could easily do an Adern if given the chance -- and rout Boris.
But, alas, Labour is the most misogynistic of our parties, and so they all voted for Sir Keir PersonalityBypass.
Lose
Lose
Lose
BLAIR
BLAIR
BLAIR
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
https://www.euronews.com/2020/12/31/will-english-remain-an-official-eu-language-after-brexit
Scottish Gaelic became an official EU language in 2011:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/scots-gaelic-becomes-an-eu-language-1799290.html
2. Your antisemitic comments on here in recent days haven't been forgotten. A wiser person would have apologised.
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1353799613875187712?s=19
McConnell is basically filibustering the Dem win and Manchin and Sinema haven't worked out they will be the most powerful people in the Senate if they tell him to go fuck himself.
She only came to power through deals with the Greens and NZ First, Starmer could well become PM on similar backroom deals if Boris loses his majority in 2024
If the Scottish electorate give the SNP a majority on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge the such is democracy. If they deny the SNP a majority then that too is democracy. That is for the Scottish voters to decide and I don't have a vote in that election any more than I had a vote in who should be Labour leader.
As for "taking responsibility for themselves" then the issue is that for any issue the goto response is to blame London, even if its a mess of their own making. That's not taking responsibility for yourselves. It is the same argument as to why Brexit was a good idea because British politicians could no longer hide between blaming Brussels. Exactly the same principle.
Mark Reckless (PPE Christ Church).
Come the Senedd elections 2021, I can't expect a decent or competent Government to take office thereafter.
But, at least, please, please God, give me the joy of seeing Mark Reckless booted out of Wales.
Biden got in on an anti Trump ticket, Starmer would need to get in on an anti Boris ticket next time
https://twitter.com/alexandreafonso/status/1353823301156675584
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-languages_en#:~:text=1 Bulgarian 2 Croatian 3 Czech 4 Danish,Finnish 9 French 10 German More items...
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/1353795509039869953
Again the EU put a tremendous amount of stock by the AZ vaccine in their planning, to have this kind of floating story is no good for them.
Just saying.
What a record keeping Murks.
If the joke ref happens, I won't participate. It won't be a big statement, I'll just have other stuff on.
Arrests, riots and car fires ahead of the Dutch New Year celebrations
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/12/arrests-riots-and-car-fires-ahead-of-the-dutch-new-year-celebrations/
The BBC looks positively centrist in comparison, or so I am told, by lefty friends who are still shocked by the outrageous leftiness of German media.
Of course, their history must be taken as context. And it is quite a context.
I condemned you for it.
And I can prove it by linking to your comment so people don't have to take my word for it.
Whereas you're just a gaslighting liar.
Nationals 44% Ardern's Labour 37%.
So Starmer Labour is actually doing better than Ardern Labour did when Ardern first became PM.
They are not amateurs - this is their full time job for which they get paid.
What they are is incompetent.
Biden might be persuadable if they cut off part of the Americans' vaccine supplies, though.
Conte's Italian government mind you...
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3211907#Comment_3211907
Pfizer, who have a Jewish CEO. Israel. And oh what's that "cough cough" about?
Here's the EHRC definition (bullet points 2 and 6 are the interesting ones)
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
Make your own minds up.
BTW the prorogation crisis should have made people realise Scots law also exists, so that is another factor (as Scotuk doesn't like striking it down just cos English law is different, as we also saw re prorogation).
And I won't comment in detail on the tone of some of the commentary on here, which is little short of colonialist in its thinking or at least its desperate hopes - for what else is saying No to a politically legitimate vote?
What a surprise.