The polling that shows that Boris is NOT the right UK leader to protect the union – politicalbetting

Philip_Thompson said:

Slackbladder said:

Peston has the summary of the AZ cluster-fuck
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1354019140084916225

Basically the EU screwed the pooch big time.

I don't normally like or respect Peston but this is simple, factual and reads entirely correctly.

Flatlander said:

FF43 said:

david_herdson said:

Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.

And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).

There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.

Case, death and hospitalisation rates in Scotland have been running at half the English levels for some time now. That's a big difference in outcomes. Sturgeon has made some bad mistakes on Covid, as has Johnson, Sturgeon seems capable of learning from her mistakes, while Johnson keeps making the same mistakes again and again, with the result that tens of thousands of people will die, who would otherwise live.

The SNP are perfectly capable of mucking up, but almost no-one so far has made money betting on them doing so.

Excess deaths and death certificate numbers in Scotland appear to be very similar to the English ones though. It is only the 'within 28 days of a test' figure that is lower.

Perhaps the lack of testing skewed the numbers?

Selebian said:

ydoethur said:

Selebian said:

- detected cases are high in teachers, but I would imagine that teachers are getting more tests - surely if there's a known case in a school, don't all the teachers get tested? I'd hope so! So more with mild/no symptoms may be getting detected..

No.

Oh!

Among teachers I know, that has been the policy for some time (brother-in-law, sister-in-law and sister of a friend) although recommended, not really enforced - sister of a friend was asked by headteacher not to take a test as he couldn't afford to lose any more staff The in-laws are one in a pretty small school and one in a private school, so may not be typical experiences.

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

FPT

Selebian said:

FF43 said:

Interesting header on the legality of a unilaterally called referendum. I think the legality matters less than it appears at first sight

• If Johnson accepts a referendum, it is in effect legal.
  
• If he doesn't accept it, any move towards independence is contested, with all the implications that has. Whether it's a referendum that is being contested or independence itself largely comes to the same thing.
  

For Johnson the implication of a contested independence is that he is rejecting any self-determination by Scotland. The only way he has of demonstrating Scotland doesn't want to leave the United Kingdom is by allowing the referendum and winning it.

For Sturgeon the implication of a contested independence is that it is likely to invalidate that independence within sections of her own country as well as internationally. It also creates a very messy situation.

There's also the prospect, as others raised here yesterday, that a referendum not authorised by the UK government is boycotted by unionists. Unless the nats get an absolute majority of eligible voters voting for independence in such a referendum, then it won't carry a great deal of weight - even if 90% vote to leave on a 50% turnout that does not (provably) demonstrate the majority will of the Scottish people.

That's why an unauthorised referendum will just be shit-stirring, possibly a useful tool in pushing a yes vote in an authorised referendum a few years later, but not decisive in itself.

I say that as someone who believes that if a Nationalist majority is returned to Holyrood on a ticket of calling a second independence referendum then it should be granted - and Brexit is enough of a material change in circumstances to override the once in a generation idea - even though I personally would like Scotland to stay.

A proportion of the Scottish electorate will think a unilaterally called referendum to be invalid and to be boycotted. But the boycott won't necessarily be big enough to overturn the result when it comes to it.

eg 55% support independence with 85% turnout (matching 2014). 45% oppose and only 30% turn out. This gives you 87% YES on a 60% turnout. You can adjust the percentages but those figures look OK for YES.

Thinking further. Nationalists need to get significantly more than 50% support and get 50% to turn out in a unilaterally called referendum. If they get the first they will probably get the second. The Catalans got neither. In any case the YES vote will be sky high.

Richard_Nabavi said:

You always wanted to know this, didn't you?

https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1354009743925387264

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

The EU is clearly deeply pissed off with AstraZeneca. They want to know why EU orders are not being fulfilled when others, to the UK, for example, are, especially in view of the fact that the EU helped to finance the development and production of the vaccine.

https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/astrazeneca-impfstoff-probleme-101.html

But why are they so exercised about their orders not being fulfilled when they haven’t approved the vaccine?

I’m not bothering about a heat pump for the swimming pool until I can afford one.

And if they are in any way involved in this fake news story at Handelsblatt - even indirectly - it would be immensely damaging to them.

Anyone would think they were being advised by the Department of Education.

The whole issue has already been a disaster for the EU

Whereas good old Blighty has covered itself in glory on everything in recent months and years eh? (chortle)

Of course not, and that is not the point.

For all our faults, we have not been involved in threatening vaccine supplies to the rest of the World at the height of a global pandemic

The EU has not "threatened vaccine supplies". This is the kind of language that escalates problems. So far the EU has suggested it might introduce a new paperwork procedure for exports. It is a little bit of minor posturing to strong-arm AZ. AZ will not want to piss off the EU because it has long term business to consider. The EU is applying legitimate pressure. Everyone needs to step off the chauvinistic bandwagon and get real.

Even the Guardian are saying they have for God's sake.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/25/eu-threatens-to-block-covid-vaccine-exports-amid-astrazeneca-shortfall

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.

And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).

There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.

Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.

We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?

Oh here we go again. Because we are not Scots we have no right to criticise your obsession with hating the English. It is a bit of a challenge if all of us are only allowed to make comment on our immediate area. Are we not able to comment on Trump , Jair Bolsonaro or any of the other nationalist fuckwits in the world? Perhaps you should only comment on activities in your parish council and spare us your "wisdom"? Part of the reason hate filled nationalism has run rampant in Scotland is because people won't call it out for what it is. Your posts that suggest anyone who is not Scottish cannot comment only demonstrate how dumb and vacuous your belief set is.

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Malmesbury said:

Some German portmanteau words are a joy. "Hamsterkauf" still makes me smile.

I've always liked 'Krankenhaus'.

What's the German for gutter press ?
Skandalpresse doesn't quite capture it.

Burgessian said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

FPT

Selebian said:

FF43 said:

Interesting header on the legality of a unilaterally called referendum. I think the legality matters less than it appears at first sight

• If Johnson accepts a referendum, it is in effect legal.
  
• If he doesn't accept it, any move towards independence is contested, with all the implications that has. Whether it's a referendum that is being contested or independence itself largely comes to the same thing.
  

For Johnson the implication of a contested independence is that he is rejecting any self-determination by Scotland. The only way he has of demonstrating Scotland doesn't want to leave the United Kingdom is by allowing the referendum and winning it.

For Sturgeon the implication of a contested independence is that it is likely to invalidate that independence within sections of her own country as well as internationally. It also creates a very messy situation.

There's also the prospect, as others raised here yesterday, that a referendum not authorised by the UK government is boycotted by unionists. Unless the nats get an absolute majority of eligible voters voting for independence in such a referendum, then it won't carry a great deal of weight - even if 90% vote to leave on a 50% turnout that does not (provably) demonstrate the majority will of the Scottish people.

That's why an unauthorised referendum will just be shit-stirring, possibly a useful tool in pushing a yes vote in an authorised referendum a few years later, but not decisive in itself.

I say that as someone who believes that if a Nationalist majority is returned to Holyrood on a ticket of calling a second independence referendum then it should be granted - and Brexit is enough of a material change in circumstances to override the once in a generation idea - even though I personally would like Scotland to stay.

A proportion of the Scottish electorate will think a unilaterally called referendum to be invalid and to be boycotted. But the boycott won't necessarily be big enough to overturn the result when it comes to it.

eg 55% support independence with 85% turnout (matching 2014). 45% oppose and only 30% turn out. This gives you 87% YES on a 60% turnout. You can adjust the percentages but those figures look OK for YES.

Thinking further. Nationalists need to get significantly more than 50% support and get 50% to turn out in a unilaterally called referendum. If they get the first they will probably get the second. The Catalans got neither. In any case the YES vote will be sky high.

Unionists will boycott and there won't be a No campaign. Turnout will be below 50%. It will lack all credibility.

Very risky for Sturgeon to go down this route. Like Brexit, this so-called referendum is due largely to issues of party management.

Nigel_Foremain said:

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

The EU is clearly deeply pissed off with AstraZeneca. They want to know why EU orders are not being fulfilled when others, to the UK, for example, are, especially in view of the fact that the EU helped to finance the development and production of the vaccine.

https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/astrazeneca-impfstoff-probleme-101.html

But why are they so exercised about their orders not being fulfilled when they haven’t approved the vaccine?

I’m not bothering about a heat pump for the swimming pool until I can afford one.

And if they are in any way involved in this fake news story at Handelsblatt - even indirectly - it would be immensely damaging to them.

Anyone would think they were being advised by the Department of Education.

The whole issue has already been a disaster for the EU

Whereas good old Blighty has covered itself in glory on everything in recent months and years eh? (chortle)

Of course not, and that is not the point.

For all our faults, we have not been involved in threatening vaccine supplies to the rest of the World at the height of a global pandemic

The EU has not "threatened vaccine supplies". This is the kind of language that escalates problems. So far the EU has suggested it might introduce a new paperwork procedure for exports. It is a little bit of minor posturing to strong-arm AZ. AZ will not want to piss off the EU because it has long term business to consider. The EU is applying legitimate pressure. Everyone needs to step off the chauvinistic bandwagon and get real.

Even the Guardian are saying they have for God's sake.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/25/eu-threatens-to-block-covid-vaccine-exports-amid-astrazeneca-shortfall

Oh, must be true then!! It is not, it is an opinion. I suggest it is called negotiating pressure. The global pharma industry, of which the UK is lucky enough to be a leader is a global industry and the EU know that they need to use their collective weight to exert pressure to make up for previous negotiating blunders. We would do the same, were matters reversed.

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Malmesbury said:

Some German portmanteau words are a joy. "Hamsterkauf" still makes me smile.

I've always liked 'Krankenhaus'.

What's the German for gutter press ?
Skandalpresse doesn't quite capture it.

FF43 said:

Burgessian said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

FPT

Selebian said:

FF43 said:

Interesting header on the legality of a unilaterally called referendum. I think the legality matters less than it appears at first sight

• If Johnson accepts a referendum, it is in effect legal.
  
• If he doesn't accept it, any move towards independence is contested, with all the implications that has. Whether it's a referendum that is being contested or independence itself largely comes to the same thing.
  

For Johnson the implication of a contested independence is that he is rejecting any self-determination by Scotland. The only way he has of demonstrating Scotland doesn't want to leave the United Kingdom is by allowing the referendum and winning it.

For Sturgeon the implication of a contested independence is that it is likely to invalidate that independence within sections of her own country as well as internationally. It also creates a very messy situation.

There's also the prospect, as others raised here yesterday, that a referendum not authorised by the UK government is boycotted by unionists. Unless the nats get an absolute majority of eligible voters voting for independence in such a referendum, then it won't carry a great deal of weight - even if 90% vote to leave on a 50% turnout that does not (provably) demonstrate the majority will of the Scottish people.

That's why an unauthorised referendum will just be shit-stirring, possibly a useful tool in pushing a yes vote in an authorised referendum a few years later, but not decisive in itself.

I say that as someone who believes that if a Nationalist majority is returned to Holyrood on a ticket of calling a second independence referendum then it should be granted - and Brexit is enough of a material change in circumstances to override the once in a generation idea - even though I personally would like Scotland to stay.

A proportion of the Scottish electorate will think a unilaterally called referendum to be invalid and to be boycotted. But the boycott won't necessarily be big enough to overturn the result when it comes to it.

eg 55% support independence with 85% turnout (matching 2014). 45% oppose and only 30% turn out. This gives you 87% YES on a 60% turnout. You can adjust the percentages but those figures look OK for YES.

Thinking further. Nationalists need to get significantly more than 50% support and get 50% to turn out in a unilaterally called referendum. If they get the first they will probably get the second. The Catalans got neither. In any case the YES vote will be sky high.

Unionists will boycott and there won't be a No campaign. Turnout will be below 50%. It will lack all credibility.

Very risky for Sturgeon to go down this route. Like Brexit, this so-called referendum is due largely to issues of party management.

I think if Sturgeon can get support for independence solidly at 55% or above, she is home and dry, including with a unilaterally called referendum. Agree it's a risky strategy at support levels below that.

RobD said:

FF43 said:

Burgessian said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

FPT

Selebian said:

FF43 said:

Interesting header on the legality of a unilaterally called referendum. I think the legality matters less than it appears at first sight

• If Johnson accepts a referendum, it is in effect legal.
  
• If he doesn't accept it, any move towards independence is contested, with all the implications that has. Whether it's a referendum that is being contested or independence itself largely comes to the same thing.
  

For Johnson the implication of a contested independence is that he is rejecting any self-determination by Scotland. The only way he has of demonstrating Scotland doesn't want to leave the United Kingdom is by allowing the referendum and winning it.

For Sturgeon the implication of a contested independence is that it is likely to invalidate that independence within sections of her own country as well as internationally. It also creates a very messy situation.

There's also the prospect, as others raised here yesterday, that a referendum not authorised by the UK government is boycotted by unionists. Unless the nats get an absolute majority of eligible voters voting for independence in such a referendum, then it won't carry a great deal of weight - even if 90% vote to leave on a 50% turnout that does not (provably) demonstrate the majority will of the Scottish people.

That's why an unauthorised referendum will just be shit-stirring, possibly a useful tool in pushing a yes vote in an authorised referendum a few years later, but not decisive in itself.

I say that as someone who believes that if a Nationalist majority is returned to Holyrood on a ticket of calling a second independence referendum then it should be granted - and Brexit is enough of a material change in circumstances to override the once in a generation idea - even though I personally would like Scotland to stay.

A proportion of the Scottish electorate will think a unilaterally called referendum to be invalid and to be boycotted. But the boycott won't necessarily be big enough to overturn the result when it comes to it.

eg 55% support independence with 85% turnout (matching 2014). 45% oppose and only 30% turn out. This gives you 87% YES on a 60% turnout. You can adjust the percentages but those figures look OK for YES.

Thinking further. Nationalists need to get significantly more than 50% support and get 50% to turn out in a unilaterally called referendum. If they get the first they will probably get the second. The Catalans got neither. In any case the YES vote will be sky high.

Unionists will boycott and there won't be a No campaign. Turnout will be below 50%. It will lack all credibility.

Very risky for Sturgeon to go down this route. Like Brexit, this so-called referendum is due largely to issues of party management.

I think if Sturgeon can get support for independence solidly at 55% or above, she is home and dry, including with a unilaterally called referendum. Agree it's a risky strategy at support levels below that.

You expect 100% turnout amongst Yes voters? I think that's a huge ask.

Nigel_Foremain said:

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

The EU is clearly deeply pissed off with AstraZeneca. They want to know why EU orders are not being fulfilled when others, to the UK, for example, are, especially in view of the fact that the EU helped to finance the development and production of the vaccine.

https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/astrazeneca-impfstoff-probleme-101.html

But why are they so exercised about their orders not being fulfilled when they haven’t approved the vaccine?

I’m not bothering about a heat pump for the swimming pool until I can afford one.

And if they are in any way involved in this fake news story at Handelsblatt - even indirectly - it would be immensely damaging to them.

Anyone would think they were being advised by the Department of Education.

The whole issue has already been a disaster for the EU

Whereas good old Blighty has covered itself in glory on everything in recent months and years eh? (chortle)

Of course not, and that is not the point.

For all our faults, we have not been involved in threatening vaccine supplies to the rest of the World at the height of a global pandemic

The EU has not "threatened vaccine supplies". This is the kind of language that escalates problems. So far the EU has suggested it might introduce a new paperwork procedure for exports. It is a little bit of minor posturing to strong-arm AZ. AZ will not want to piss off the EU because it has long term business to consider. The EU is applying legitimate pressure. Everyone needs to step off the chauvinistic bandwagon and get real.

Even the Guardian are saying they have for God's sake.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/25/eu-threatens-to-block-covid-vaccine-exports-amid-astrazeneca-shortfall

Oh, must be true then!! It is not, it is an opinion. I suggest it is called negotiating pressure. The global pharma industry, of which the UK is lucky enough to be a leader is a global industry and the EU know that they need to use their collective weight to exert pressure to make up for previous negotiating blunders. We would do the same, were matters reversed.

Phil said:

geoffw said:

Though Handelsblatt is a tabloid, that is only literally so, i.e. its size is tabloid. It has always had a decent reputation for quality, akin to the FT or The Economist, so it is surprising to me that it has allowed this story to get out of hand.

Handelsblatt were all-in backing Wirecard against perfidious Albion (sorry, that should be the FT & US/UK short sellers) so I’m not sure I’d rate their financial journalism that highly personally. They seem a bit prone to letting nationalism blind them to obvious problems.

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.

And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).

There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.

Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.

We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?

Oh here we go again. Because we are not Scots we have no right to criticise your obsession with hating the English. It is a bit of a challenge if all of us are only allowed to make comment on our immediate area. Are we not able to comment on Trump , Jair Bolsonaro or any of the other nationalist fuckwits in the world? Perhaps you should only comment on activities in your parish council and spare us your "wisdom"? Part of the reason hate filled nationalism has run rampant in Scotland is because people won't call it out for what it is. Your posts that suggest anyone who is not Scottish cannot comment only demonstrate how dumb and vacuous your belief set is.

Can you just try not to be quite so triggered? I’m sure it won’t be doing much for what I suspect is already a gammony demeanour.

Lol, good try! I am not " gammony" , that is a demeanour normally held by angry small minded nationalists like yourself and Malcolm. You should learn to love humanity more rather than trying to pull up a metaphoric drawbridge just north of Hadrian's!
Let me let you into a secret: Scots are not superior to English or visa versa. Nationalism is a creed based on ignorance and is personified in your Little Scotland attitude in your posts. I don't get triggered about them, I just find them very sad. Independence for Scotland is even more stupid than Brexit, and you are clearly not stupid so you know this, but your hatred still wants it anyway. Throw away the hate. It will make you feel better

Look, I’ll make a special clarification for you. You definitely shouldn’t be ignored because you’re English, only because you’re boring, repetitive and a bit thick. Fair enough?

Phil said:

geoffw said:

Though Handelsblatt is a tabloid, that is only literally so, i.e. its size is tabloid. It has always had a decent reputation for quality, akin to the FT or The Economist, so it is surprising to me that it has allowed this story to get out of hand.

Handelsblatt were all-in backing Wirecard against perfidious Albion (sorry, that should be the FT & US/UK short sellers) so I’m not sure I’d rate their financial journalism that highly personally. They seem a bit prone to letting nationalism blind them to obvious problems.

CarlottaVance said:

Its being rowed back:

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354025846038802433?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354027027402289152?s=20

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

Mike is right. But Sturgeon is more vulnerable than those figures make her look. Her public performance on Covid has been assured but the outcomes have been almost as bad as those in England (and worse than NI). She is vulnerable to attack there, especially from Scottish Lab and LD, who don't have the problem of whataboutery that the Scottish Cons would.

And then there's the Salmond issue, dividing the SNP and which is a messy and tawdry story which in normal times would certainly have had the potential to bring her down (and still may).

There is a positive case to be made for the Union - and the Covid vaccine rollout is doing it well - but there's also a strong argument to hit Sturgeon hard wherever possible too.

Personally I think that the SNP pulling Sturgeon down could well be dragging defeat from the jaws of victory. They should definitely go for it is my impartial advice 😉 Replacing her with some raving nutter would make the administration of Scotland even poorer than it is already but it would be a price worth paying.

We’ve had lots of opinions from voteless Scotch experts in far away lands about Unionist boycotts, ‘illegal’ referendums and the like. Aiui you’ve said that if there’s a majority for another ref in May, Indy ref there should be despite your reservations, democracy should prevail. If BJ continues to block and an advisory but non S30 sanctioned referendum takes place, what would be your position?

Oh here we go again. Because we are not Scots we have no right to criticise your obsession with hating the English. It is a bit of a challenge if all of us are only allowed to make comment on our immediate area. Are we not able to comment on Trump , Jair Bolsonaro or any of the other nationalist fuckwits in the world? Perhaps you should only comment on activities in your parish council and spare us your "wisdom"? Part of the reason hate filled nationalism has run rampant in Scotland is because people won't call it out for what it is. Your posts that suggest anyone who is not Scottish cannot comment only demonstrate how dumb and vacuous your belief set is.

Can you just try not to be quite so triggered? I’m sure it won’t be doing much for what I suspect is already a gammony demeanour.

Lol, good try! I am not " gammony" , that is a demeanour normally held by angry small minded nationalists like yourself and Malcolm. You should learn to love humanity more rather than trying to pull up a metaphoric drawbridge just north of Hadrian's!
Let me let you into a secret: Scots are not superior to English or visa versa. Nationalism is a creed based on ignorance and is personified in your Little Scotland attitude in your posts. I don't get triggered about them, I just find them very sad. Independence for Scotland is even more stupid than Brexit, and you are clearly not stupid so you know this, but your hatred still wants it anyway. Throw away the hate. It will make you feel better

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Its being rowed back:

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354025846038802433?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354027027402289152?s=20

Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.

And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Its being rowed back:

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354025846038802433?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354027027402289152?s=20

Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.

And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Phil said:

geoffw said:

Though Handelsblatt is a tabloid, that is only literally so, i.e. its size is tabloid. It has always had a decent reputation for quality, akin to the FT or The Economist, so it is surprising to me that it has allowed this story to get out of hand.

Handelsblatt were all-in backing Wirecard against perfidious Albion (sorry, that should be the FT & US/UK short sellers) so I’m not sure I’d rate their financial journalism that highly personally. They seem a bit prone to letting nationalism blind them to obvious problems.

The WireCard story is quite incredible. I am surprised it hasn't got more widespread coverage. I mean even going to the extent of hiring actors to pretend to be a bank in the Far East to try and fool the auditors.

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Its being rowed back:

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354025846038802433?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354027027402289152?s=20

Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.

And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.

ydoethur said:

JohnLilburne said:

ydoethur said:

And my response, also from previous thread:

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

You may remember that yesterday I expressed surprise at the death rate among teaching staff being similar to the community outside, despite the infection rate being triple.

Turns out there are two reasons for this figure.

One is that on the whole teachers are younger than the population at large (something to do with 40% of staff leaving the profession within five years of qualifying).

The other is that the government deliberately excluded all staff over the age of 64, which meant they excluded half of all deaths among school staff, but compared the rate to the population as a whole.

Which is extraordinary. Not only is that blatantly criminal - even by the dreadful standards set by Williamson and Gibb - but were they really so dumb as to think nobody would notice?

I can only hope that the judge gives them all life sentences.

https://www.tes.com/news/covid-teacher-deaths-double-when-over-64s-are-added

That TES piece is based on an Eoin Clarke special (renamed himself to 'Toryfibs' after the Eoin Clarke 'Blizzard of apologies to people he lied about' incident. I'm still blocked 9 years later.). Handle with extreme care.

The stats are also not DES stats, they are ONS stats. Govt did not exclude older (how many active teachers are there over 64 currently working in schools?) to manipulate figures, ONS did because reliable stats do not exist, and explicitly warn that the over-65 stats are provisional.

And the TES have not claimed a deliberate Govt intention to deceive. Nor has Eoin (used to call himself Dr Eoin when he was publishing 'health stats'; Phd is in Feminist History); he knows he'd be skewered if he did.

ONS compared 20-64 age group secondary school teachers to other professionals in the same age group, because they are the only ones for whom comparable statistics are available. They found teachers to be at a *lower* risk of death from COVID (at a 5% significance) level. Significance vanishes when extended to all education related staff.

ONS keep the over 65s provisional figures separate as it is not clear who they represent - are many retired etc?

Eoin just conflates the whole lot, with no commentary, to excite his followers. IMO TES have been suckered.

ONS commentary:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19relateddeathsbyoccupationenglandandwales/deathsregisteredbetween9marchand28december2020#deaths-involving-covid-19-in-teaching-and-educational-professionals

If there is one conclusion I'd hazard it is that teachers of working age are safer because vulnerables are shielding, and perhaps can afford to as still paid (?).

Vulnerable teachers are not shielding routinely, and they are not safer. Infection rates are three times the general population.

So the most plausible response to the fact that there are more infections but comparable deaths is that they are (a) younger and (b) figures are being fiddled. Which they clearly are. I would point out that the TES has filtered his data because it included lecturers, and they were interested in teachers.

This is all of piece with the DfE’s attempts through a number of irresponsible sources to claim schools are safe, when they are clearly not. And I might add, having repeatedly lied about the figures in the past (claiming the infection rate was 0.2% when it was 4.2% and the number isolating was up to 23%) they have in any case a massive credibility problem.

And whatever subject Clarke’s PhD was in, he’s still a doctor (unlike almost all GPs) and perfectly entitled to call himself one.

Do teachers have three times the infection rate? Or are they just being tested more? A teacher friend had it, he only got a headache so only knew about it because of a routine test.

A good question, to which the answer is the data is inconclusive. Unhelpfully, there has been no serious attempt to publish the data collated by the government, possibly because they didn’t like the answer, so there are only indications from Leeds (four times general population) and Birmingham (threefold). They are based on positive test results, but since school staff were not (and still are not, incidentally) being routinely tested it’s difficult to argue they are being tested more than the population at large without knowing the overall testing rate. As against that, from experience I know teachers are encouraged to get tested if they have any symptoms, but that is true for everyone.

What we can say is that (1) schools are an ideal breeding ground for the virus by their design and nature (2) rates of infection do appear to correlate closely with school and university openings, which may be a coincidence but is an unfortunate one and (3) the government have deliberately and repeatedly lied in order to claim schools were safe when they clearly knew perfectly well they weren’t. Now they may have done that for the noblest of reasons - keeping children in school so they can be educated isn’t a bad goal - but the fact remains that by distorting evidence, misleading the public, making policy based on these lies and refusing to admit this even when caught out, they have both failed to deal with the situation, making a serious one into a catastrophic one, and lost all their credibility. Right now I would not believe the DfE, the ONS and their allies if they told me rain was wet. And that isn’t going to change when this is over.

True, they never deserved to be believed. They were always crooks and morons. But it’s hard to see how any sort of solution to the current mess can be found by them, and even when it is there are going to be strikes, boycotts and mass departures from the profession, because why should we put up with being bullied and lied to?

ydoethur said:

Selebian said:

ydoethur said:

Selebian said:

- detected cases are high in teachers, but I would imagine that teachers are getting more tests - surely if there's a known case in a school, don't all the teachers get tested? I'd hope so! So more with mild/no symptoms may be getting detected..

No.

Oh!

Among teachers I know, that has been the policy for some time (brother-in-law, sister-in-law and sister of a friend) although recommended, not really enforced - sister of a friend was asked by headteacher not to take a test as he couldn't afford to lose any more staff The in-laws are one in a pretty small school and one in a private school, so may not be typical experiences.

The guidance from the DfE is that teachers who have followed their Covid rules are not contacts of a case.

So if you are standing inside a box at the front of the room for one hour within 75cm of a positive case you do not *have* to isolate or get tested.

Or if you were in the staff room over lunch and a member of staff tests positive, you are still not a contact.

Some conscientious heads may urge the opposite. But those are the rules.

Similarly, even if a child is sat in the same unventilated classroom as a positive contact for five hours, they do not have to isolate unless they were within two metres.

If it wasn’t for that, schools would have been shut by mid-November.

Brutally, that’s probably a key reason why school reopening has not been an epidemiological success.

CarlottaVance said:

Its being rowed back:

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354025846038802433?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354027027402289152?s=20

FrancisUrquhart said:

CarlottaVance said:

Its being rowed back:

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354025846038802433?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354027027402289152?s=20

"Taken shortcuts"....that still implies things not done properly.

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Its being rowed back:

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354025846038802433?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354027027402289152?s=20

Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.

And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.

david_herdson said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Its being rowed back:

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354025846038802433?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354027027402289152?s=20

Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.

And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a short-cut.

In this case, it's true: the normal approval process was short-cut - for example, by running different non-dependent stages in parallel. Doing so took risks - had one stage failed then there'd have been a much higher wastage rate - but didn't compromise the ultimate outcome.

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1354028389712146433?s=20

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1354019145147420677
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1354019147311702016

Why were people desperate for the UK to join this again? They weren't pushing for it for ideological reasons, surely?

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Its being rowed back:

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354025846038802433?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354027027402289152?s=20

Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.

And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.

Mortimer said:

Malmesbury said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Phil said:

geoffw said:

Though Handelsblatt is a tabloid, that is only literally so, i.e. its size is tabloid. It has always had a decent reputation for quality, akin to the FT or The Economist, so it is surprising to me that it has allowed this story to get out of hand.

Handelsblatt were all-in backing Wirecard against perfidious Albion (sorry, that should be the FT & US/UK short sellers) so I’m not sure I’d rate their financial journalism that highly personally. They seem a bit prone to letting nationalism blind them to obvious problems.

The WireCard story is quite incredible. I am surprised it hasn't got more widespread coverage. I mean even going to the extent of hiring actors to pretend to be a bank in the Far East to try and fool the auditors.

The movie is going to be demented. It's up there with the Theranos story....

Now that book is fantastic. Bad Blood.

RH1992 said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Its being rowed back:

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354025846038802433?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354027027402289152?s=20

Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.

And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.

Another use is to try and find out commercially sensitive information with third countries, (in this instance the number of vaccines heading to the UK) something the EU has no right to know.

MarqueeMark said:

GIN1138 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

GIN1138 said:

I've got to say (and you know I'm usually an admirer of Ms Sturgeon) I'm amazed at the tolerance of the Scots putting up with Nicola's separatist obsessions while everyone is fighting to stay alive in the middle of the worst pandemic for a century...

It’s not like it’s important stuff like Brexit...

If we were still "IN" I wouldn't be expecting the government to be harping on about an EU referendum at the moment...

Fact is, as a result of Brexit the Scottish vaxx numbers - poor as they are - will still be running at ten times the number if we had not left the EU.

So, how about a little gratitude, eh Scotland, for the UK voting to Brexit?

Aye, right.....

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1354027210898862080?s=20

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1354028102033301504?s=20

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1354028802586894336?s=20

RochdalePioneers said:

Without wanting to keep going back to Scotland, the mandate issue is easy to solve. In 2019 the Tories ran on a clear manifesto pledge that a vote for a Tory government is a vote to Get Brexit Done. So the same would be true for an SNP manifesto that a vote for an SNP government is a vote for Sindyref2: The Smell of Salmond Fear.

If - and I'm certain they will - the SNP have the need for a new referendum front and centre of their manifesto, and form the government after the election, the mandate is clear. If Unionists want to pretend there is no mandate and boycott the referendum that is no different to the millions of people who attack governments and politicians but do not vote.

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1354027210898862080?s=20

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1354028102033301504?s=20

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1354028802586894336?s=20

September, eh? Seems an age ago when there’d only been 8 straight polls in a row in favour of independence.

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Without wanting to keep going back to Scotland, the mandate issue is easy to solve. In 2019 the Tories ran on a clear manifesto pledge that a vote for a Tory government is a vote to Get Brexit Done. So the same would be true for an SNP manifesto that a vote for an SNP government is a vote for Sindyref2: The Smell of Salmond Fear.

If - and I'm certain they will - the SNP have the need for a new referendum front and centre of their manifesto, and form the government after the election, the mandate is clear. If Unionists want to pretend there is no mandate and boycott the referendum that is no different to the millions of people who attack governments and politicians but do not vote.

It isn't because without Westminster agreeing the referendum is legal and agreeing to implement its result it is nothing more than a glorified equivalent of Express polls for Nationalist voters if Unionists boycott it, as they would

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Without wanting to keep going back to Scotland, the mandate issue is easy to solve. In 2019 the Tories ran on a clear manifesto pledge that a vote for a Tory government is a vote to Get Brexit Done. So the same would be true for an SNP manifesto that a vote for an SNP government is a vote for Sindyref2: The Smell of Salmond Fear.

If - and I'm certain they will - the SNP have the need for a new referendum front and centre of their manifesto, and form the government after the election, the mandate is clear. If Unionists want to pretend there is no mandate and boycott the referendum that is no different to the millions of people who attack governments and politicians but do not vote.

And (presumably) the Scottish Greens. Not so probably Slab (though the decision there hasn't been made yet, has it?)

david_herdson said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Its being rowed back:

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354025846038802433?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354027027402289152?s=20

Lol, the scheme has no use other than to block exports. There is literally no other reason to require export permission.

And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a short-cut.

In this case, it's true: the normal approval process was short-cut - for example, by running different non-dependent stages in parallel. Doing so took risks - had one stage failed then there'd have been a much higher wastage rate - but didn't compromise the ultimate outcome.

Burgessian said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

FPT

Selebian said:

FF43 said:

Interesting header on the legality of a unilaterally called referendum. I think the legality matters less than it appears at first sight

• If Johnson accepts a referendum, it is in effect legal.
  
• If he doesn't accept it, any move towards independence is contested, with all the implications that has. Whether it's a referendum that is being contested or independence itself largely comes to the same thing.
  

For Johnson the implication of a contested independence is that he is rejecting any self-determination by Scotland. The only way he has of demonstrating Scotland doesn't want to leave the United Kingdom is by allowing the referendum and winning it.

For Sturgeon the implication of a contested independence is that it is likely to invalidate that independence within sections of her own country as well as internationally. It also creates a very messy situation.

There's also the prospect, as others raised here yesterday, that a referendum not authorised by the UK government is boycotted by unionists. Unless the nats get an absolute majority of eligible voters voting for independence in such a referendum, then it won't carry a great deal of weight - even if 90% vote to leave on a 50% turnout that does not (provably) demonstrate the majority will of the Scottish people.

That's why an unauthorised referendum will just be shit-stirring, possibly a useful tool in pushing a yes vote in an authorised referendum a few years later, but not decisive in itself.

I say that as someone who believes that if a Nationalist majority is returned to Holyrood on a ticket of calling a second independence referendum then it should be granted - and Brexit is enough of a material change in circumstances to override the once in a generation idea - even though I personally would like Scotland to stay.

A proportion of the Scottish electorate will think a unilaterally called referendum to be invalid and to be boycotted. But the boycott won't necessarily be big enough to overturn the result when it comes to it.

eg 55% support independence with 85% turnout (matching 2014). 45% oppose and only 30% turn out. This gives you 87% YES on a 60% turnout. You can adjust the percentages but those figures look OK for YES.

Thinking further. Nationalists need to get significantly more than 50% support and get 50% to turn out in a unilaterally called referendum. If they get the first they will probably get the second. The Catalans got neither. In any case the YES vote will be sky high.

Unionists will boycott and there won't be a No campaign. Turnout will be below 50%. It will lack all credibility.

Very risky for Sturgeon to go down this route. Like Brexit, this so-called referendum is due largely to issues of party management.

GIN1138 said:

I've got to say (and you know I'm usually an admirer of Ms Sturgeon) I'm amazed at the tolerance of the Scots putting up with Nicola's separatist obsessions while everyone is fighting to stay alive in the middle of the worst pandemic for a century...

Carnyx said:

MarqueeMark said:

GIN1138 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

GIN1138 said:

I've got to say (and you know I'm usually an admirer of Ms Sturgeon) I'm amazed at the tolerance of the Scots putting up with Nicola's separatist obsessions while everyone is fighting to stay alive in the middle of the worst pandemic for a century...

It’s not like it’s important stuff like Brexit...

If we were still "IN" I wouldn't be expecting the government to be harping on about an EU referendum at the moment...

Fact is, as a result of Brexit the Scottish vaxx numbers - poor as they are - will still be running at ten times the number if we had not left the EU.

So, how about a little gratitude, eh Scotland, for the UK voting to Brexit?

Aye, right.....

Not true, surely. UK could still havew gone it alone. As with so many other things, despite the claims of Brexiters.