It's pretty clear that if the UK was in the same boat as the EU, they would not be whining half as much.
We were and are....supply is still lumpy. We just haven't gone full Cartman. Keep calm and carry on (obviously too calm when it came to.other covid responses though).
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?
Keep kidding yourself that the numbers lie, or take some arithmetic education. How do you manage to get 1045 per million be same as 1537 per million. Scotland numbers horrific nonetheless.
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?
Why experts on Scotch.
Surely you know the difference between Scotch and Scots
Scotch is an alternative form of the adjective Scottish. As is Scots.
Scotch is a drink in Scotland and I am amazed that Independence supporters keep using it instead of Scots or Scottish
And I have lived in Scotland and been married to a Scot for 57 years so I am familiar with the issue
You carry on being familiar with the issue in North Wales and I’ll do my thing in my bit.
You are so bigoted you try to dismiss comments that are shared by a Northern Scot with generations of history living in a Scottish Fishing Community.
Why are you and your like so unpleasant and tetchy to criticism
I’m afraid I don’t have much tolerance for equivocators for Boris.
- 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.
If They have to give a referendum, they should do what frankly should have been done with Brexit, have a pre- referendum agreement on the nature of the deal. What currency is used, what the settlement of finances are, what the border agreement would be etc etc.
Should take about 4 years to sit down and agree, and then we can have the referendum on it.
The other side of that is it might concentrate some minds to work out a better Constitutional settlement that would have a better chance of enduring as the other option on the table.
While there were increased powers for Holyrood after the last referendum, the English Question needs to be resolved.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The EU were talking on the Euro news channel just this morning about doing exactly that, and the Irish Minister in the interview agreed and said the EU have to look after their citizens
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.
You really are a bigoted septic halfwitted cretin.
It's pretty clear that if the UK was in the same boat as the EU, they would not be whining half as much.
We were, Pfizer promised 10m doses in December and delivered just 1.5m, AZ promised 30m doses in October and delivered just 4m in January. The US had the same issues with Pfizer, they were promised 50m doses in December and received 10m.
As has been pointed out, all of these contracted supplies are based on "best effort" clauses and 31m out of 80m does seem to satisfy that.
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.
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.
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.
Just imagine the howls of outrage if the UK had done the same. We are definitely in "EU Good, UK Bad" territory here.
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.
As I understand it FF43 is a Unionist, DavidL certainly is. Perhaps they might care to comment on the boycott thing?
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?
Would say very boring , very repetitive and seriously thick, and some kind of inferiority complex about being born in England.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Matters were reversed and we didn't. AZ delivered 4m doses in January and the collective reaction was "shit happens" and the state offered it's expertise to help get doses vialled and certified faster.
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...
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.
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.
The simple fact of the matter is that our EU friends are in an absolute panic over their failure to get their act together on vaccinations, as well they should be. They are going to be months behind the UK and the US, at great cost in lives and in the economy, especially in already hard-hit sectors such as hospitality and tourism. I don't blame them for panicking, but it's not going to help magic up vaccines out of nowhere.
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.
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.
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.
"The global pharma industry, of which the UK is lucky enough to be a leader..."
Hard to see this fiasco doing anything to rebalance that towards the EU any decade soon.
The UK showing to Big Pharma - we are an honest broker, happy to welcome manufacturers, with a lighter regulatory touch.
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.
85% matching 2014. Why not?
If there's a unionist boycott that wouldn't be sufficient to get Yes to above 50% of eligible voters.
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.
They were backing that shite (Wirecard)? Including the attempts to go after journalists reporting the story?
We've only got "anonymous sources" and no evidence for something totally implausible but please believe us.
Quite. The AZ vaccine is only 8% efficient - i.e. next to useless - on the people who most need it, the over 65s? There are 2 possibilities. (i) A scandal of monumental proportions. Oxford, AZ, the UK govt and regulator all discredited. Criminal negligence at best. (ii) Complete and utter bollocks. Shoddy and irresponsible journalism in a German newspaper.
Option (ii) has to be the 1.01 fav.
Given how our government leaks like a sieve and people on committees like SAGE love chatting to the media given their new found importance, the chances of some massive cover-up on vaccine data seems about as likely as the US government having had little green men tucked away in Area 51 for the past 50 years.
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?
Haha. I believe there is a psychological disorder where someone accuses others of their own faults and is called psychological projection. This is demonstrated by Donald Trump (you know the guy - another nationalist?) who accuses others of being losers, liars and crooks. Even you might be able to see how it works? So YOU calling someone else boring repetitive and thick demonstrates this syndrome perfectly and also shows you know you lost the argument. But I forgive you you sad little man. Learn to love not hate
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.
I am surprised CNN or the NYT times haven't run the AZN is shit and that means the UK has f##ked up story. They don't normally need an excuse.
No way, they already have enough issues with anti-vaxxers there. They're not irresponsible enough to run an article that undermines a vaccine of which they are set to purchase 600m doses.
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...
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?
Haha. I believe there is a psychological disorder where someone accuses others of their own faults and is called psychological projection. This is demonstrated by Donald Trump (you know the guy - another nationalist?) who accuses others of being losers, liars and crooks. Even you might be able to see how it works? So YOU calling someone else boring repetitive and thick demonstrates this syndrome perfectly and also shows you know you lost the argument. But I forgive you you sad little man. Learn to love not hate
Why are you so desperate to interact with me? I think I’ll add weird to your CV.
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
You are obsessed that Scots are superior to the English for some reason, you try to alleviate your fears by trying to pretend that it is actually us just because we want to run our own country. You attempt to prop up your inferiority complex by talking about hate and other garbage but in the end it is just down to fact that you are a saddo who is desperate that England will have to survive on its own soon.
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...
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.
Any chance the EU accept that their bureaucracy might have got in the way of response here? One thing that struck me this morning is sometimes you have to criticise the machinery of government, even if you're in power. This is very much the case here.
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....
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.
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.
The simple fact of the matter is that our EU friends are in an absolute panic over their failure to get their act together on vaccinations, as well they should be. They are going to be months behind the UK and the US, at great cost in lives and in the economy, especially in already hard-hit sectors such as hospitality and tourism. I don't blame them for panicking, but it's not going to help magic up vaccines out of nowhere.
Not out of nowhere. They were trying to magic them up out of the UK's contracted consignments.
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.
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.
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?
The simple fact of the matter is that our EU friends are in an absolute panic over their failure to get their act together on vaccinations, as well they should be. They are going to be months behind the UK and the US, at great cost in lives and in the economy, especially in already hard-hit sectors such as hospitality and tourism. I don't blame them for panicking, but it's not going to help magic up vaccines out of nowhere.
Not out of nowhere. They were trying to magic them up out of the UK's contracted consignments.
- 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.
Thanks. As a teacher, you may be gratified to learn that you've successfully taught someone something today
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.
85% matching 2014. Why not?
If there's a unionist boycott that wouldn't be sufficient to get Yes to above 50% of eligible voters.
At an assumed 55% support for independence, you would get 47% turnout even if not a single NO voter turned out. You only need 8% of Unionists to turn out and you get over 50%. Bear in mind Unionists in Scotland are split. Half of them are utterly appalled by Johnson's vision of the Union.
The dynamic of this referendum changes completely if there is a clear majority support for independence in Scotland. 55%/45% is OK; 52%/48% not so much.
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....
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.
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.
Pretty much how I see it. I'm not fingering my outrage button yet. But I'm prepared to do that - and even push it - if the story develops to a place where the EU goes gangster and seeks to punish others for their own mistakes. I'm not seeing that atm.
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.
Clearly not fast enough to stop an aforementioned Irish minister make a prat of himself on the radio, by saying the EU need to look after themselves first before exporting vaccines.
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.
Especially a "nimble" shortcut. That's quite flattering language.
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.
When i watched the documentary on Theranos, I wasn't fully aware of what had happened. Watching it, I had to check the documentary wasn't some sort of spoof mockumentary....so you get these potential investors, you get them to provide a sample, put in a fake machine, distract the investor and take the sample out the fake machine and run it to a normal lab...no surely that didn't happen...oh crap it did.
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.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
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?
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....
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.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
Except that AZN produces no vaccines for the UK within EU territory.
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.
Good point. That Belgian Pfizer factory is supplying UK, USA, UAE, Israel and many other countries with vaccines, all under close NDA.
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.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
Not when you've signed a contract which specifically disallows you from 'detecting' other countries' supply levels.
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.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
Except that AZN produces no vaccines for the UK within EU territory.
Well technically the first few deliveries for the UK came from the European plant, but not now its all in the UK. At the time, the EU weren't interested in approving AZN vaccine.
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.
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.
Mr. D, reminds me of the Romans bitching because Hannibal used battlefield tactics instead of just arranging his men in a straight line and marching at them.
I have an inkling that this opinion may not be universal... but I would prefer that vaccine doses are used to complete coverage of 70+ year-olds across Europe before under 50s without health conditions are treated in the U.K.
Why stop at Europe? Why not the whole world?
Purely based on morality, yes the whole world. Based on getting the U.K. economy up and running, focus on Europe first.
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?)
Good morning. Late to the party today. I strongly suspect that very few people are going to be greatly bothered about politics for now, and, an October poll figure is likely to be still about right. The time will come though when things are either back to something like normal or we've accepted what normal is likely to be for a bit and then the fur will fly.
I've never liked Boris, or seriously considered voting Conservative, and my view is unlikely to change, but I am coming to the view that some of Ms Sturgeons so-far-hidden chickens are coming home to roost and that while Independence will continue to be popular in Scotland her personal ratings are going to take a tumble. That might affect pro-Indy intentions.
Trouble is that there doesn't seem to be anyone about in Scottish politics who can take her place.
Good point. As Tony Blair remarked the only opposition politician who cut the mustard was Ruth Davidson who had the priceless asset of a sense of humour, as well as being pretty nippy herself when it came to it.
While Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar have potential (and are big improvements on their immediate predecessors) it is very early days for them. OTOH they may spring a surprise when the actual campaign starts. Has been known to happen (Clegg - 2010, Corbyn - 2017).
I reckon things will tighten during the campaign in any event, though I'm certainly not predicting anything other than a strong SNP result. The constitutional division is too baked in to allow huge changes.
Anas is a shoo-in is he? Slightly odd to say it’s very early days for someone who’s been an msp since 2010, deputy leader for 3 years and has already run for the leadership (and lost to wossisname). I’m not sure how much unrevealed light is under that bushel.
You may be right. But he can't be worse than Leonard, surely. I don't think anyone seriously expects Monica Lennon to win (not even her judging by recent remarks she's made)
Every time they change we say they cannot be worse than the last one, I think there is still room , Anas is a real duffer and a millionaire, paying less than national wage , kids at private school , leader is not a good fit for Scottish Labour aspirations.
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
It's pretty clear that if the UK was in the same boat as the EU, they would not be whining half as much.
We were, Pfizer promised 10m doses in December and delivered just 1.5m, AZ promised 30m doses in October and delivered just 4m in January. The US had the same issues with Pfizer, they were promised 50m doses in December and received 10m.
As has been pointed out, all of these contracted supplies are based on "best effort" clauses and 31m out of 80m does seem to satisfy that.
Their complaint is that their supplies are getting cut while others are still going ahead, despite a large contribution during the development phase.
If similar happened with supplies produced here, the reaction would not be "oh well that's the free market".
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.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
Except that AZN produces no vaccines for the UK within EU territory.
It does, the Halix site in the Netherlands is part of the UK supply chain, but to a much lesser degree now than it was at the start because the two UK subcontractors have ramped up really well. That should actually help the EU as they can integrate that production into the EU supply chain over the next few months. A constructive approach from the EU would have been much more helpful than the confrontational one they've decided to take.
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
Of course its more, it would be a legally-held, legally-authorise referendum.
The EU didn't agree to the 2016 UK advisory referendum on EU membership, it was held by the national government. Holyrood is Scotland's national government. Same principle applies exactly.
If Remainers had boycotted the EU referendum then it would still have been won by leavers.
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...
The general view - regardless of what anyone here might think about it - is that Sturgeon has handled the pandemic better than Johnson. (He hasn't set a high bar)
This seems to have driven some of the increase in support for independence - some voters in Scotland have lost trust in Johnson to keep them safe from the virus.
So independence is not seen to be in conflict with dealing with the pandemic. This would be very different if it was felt that Sturgeon had handled the pandemic less well than Johnson.
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?)
Yes. Whilst it is wise to ignore the buffoon @HYUFD on issues related to Scotland, he is in absolute denial that a *working* majority is what any government needs. The SNP with the Greens have a working majority now. If the same parties can form a pro-independence government after the election where both ran on that platform, that is just as much of a mandate as if one party only won outright.
It is important for any democracy to have multiple parties. An independent Scotland will NOT be the personal fiefdom of the SNP. Support for independence is NOT support for the perpetual rule of the SNP.
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.
This a minefield topic but I would make the point that you can get away with regulatory shortcuts more safely when those being regulated function well than when they have process issues. The Pfizer submission was textbook, so no problem giving them the nod; the Astrazeneca submission was a mess.
A couple of threads comparing MHRA, EMA and FDA approaches:
I have an inkling that this opinion may not be universal... but I would prefer that vaccine doses are used to complete coverage of 70+ year-olds across Europe before under 50s without health conditions are treated in the U.K.
Why stop at Europe? Why not the whole world?
Purely based on morality, yes the whole world. Based on getting the U.K. economy up and running, focus on Europe first.
Getting the UK economy up and running will require getting to 80%+ vaccination in the general population.
If you just put all the over 50s in a protective box, there would be enough cases, if you let COVID rip, to overwhelm the NHS, from the younger cohorts.
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.
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.
You could use such a scheme to detect and then publicise preferential treatment of other countries over yourselves - i.e. we're told factory x has production issues, but they're exporting 100% of their predicted production, so there are no production issues, they're just not giving us any.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
Except that AZN produces no vaccines for the UK within EU territory.
Well technically the first few deliveries for the UK came from the European plant, but not now its all in the UK. At the time, the EU weren't interested in approving AZN vaccine.
A different one, Charles wrote about how it works yesterday, the regulator approves the supply chain as well as the vaccine. Our vaccine is derived from three major suppliers, two in the UK and one in the Netherlands. The submission to the EU is a supply chain based in Belgium that has underperformed and started production months after the UK supply chain began to ramp up due to when each contract was signed.
The Dutch site can be incorporated into the EU supply chain but it needs to be added to the approval submission which would be done post approval rather than now which would slow things down.
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...
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.
"Could" doing a lot of heavy lifting there. At best, post Indy, Scottish negotiators would have gone in after the rUK ones and said "we'll take the same deal for a tenth of their numbers of vaccine." Maybe with a 5% uplift on price, to even get through Big Pharma's front door.
Comments
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.
While there were increased powers for Holyrood after the last referendum, the English Question needs to be resolved.
Very risky for Sturgeon to go down this route. Like Brexit, this so-called referendum is due largely to issues of party management.
We've had Mayors, Generals and now Bishops all jumping the queue in Spain - roll up Mother Theresa!
As has been pointed out, all of these contracted supplies are based on "best effort" clauses and 31m out of 80m does seem to satisfy that.
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354025846038802433?s=20
https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1354027027402289152?s=20
Hard to see this fiasco doing anything to rebalance that towards the EU any decade soon.
The UK showing to Big Pharma - we are an honest broker, happy to welcome manufacturers, with a lighter regulatory touch.
The post-Brexit way ahead.
And the UK has taken shortcuts? Where? Everything has been above board.
Try "Sorry. We fucked up."
https://twitter.com/PeteWishart/status/1354018369608019975?s=20
I'm worried about ScottyPammer. I imagine he's trawling through his twatstream, desperately looking for something..
The dynamic of this referendum changes completely if there is a clear majority support for independence in Scotland. 55%/45% is OK; 52%/48% not so much.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1354028102033301504?s=20
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1354028802586894336?s=20
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?
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.
To be clear, I don't believe AZN is doing that and the later signing of contracts etc is a good reason for the supply issues that all producers/customers have seen to be affecting the EU now while the UK has (hopefully) got past those initial issues. But, in the event that a company was screwing the EU over, requiring details on exports would be a way to expose that.
(This assumes that there are not already other ways of gathering that information, of course - would this not be recorded as any shipments cleared customs to leave the EU? Less easy to collate perhaps.)
So, how about a little gratitude, eh Scotland, for the UK voting to Brexit?
Aye, right.....
Did you see Sour Grapes?
7% of 2019 Tory voters now back Reform but only 6% of 2019 Tories back Labour.
Most of Labour's gains come from the LDs, with 43% of 2019 LD voters having switched to Starmer Labour.
Starmer Labour meanwhile has lost more votes to the Greens than the Tories. 8% of 2019 Labour voters now back the Greens but only 2% back the Tories.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/01/25/voting-intention-con-39-lab-38-21-22-jan?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=voting_intention
SalmondFear.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.
https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1354028462172999681?s=20
If similar happened with supplies produced here, the reaction would not be "oh well that's the free market".
The EU didn't agree to the 2016 UK advisory referendum on EU membership, it was held by the national government. Holyrood is Scotland's national government. Same principle applies exactly.
If Remainers had boycotted the EU referendum then it would still have been won by leavers.
This seems to have driven some of the increase in support for independence - some voters in Scotland have lost trust in Johnson to keep them safe from the virus.
So independence is not seen to be in conflict with dealing with the pandemic. This would be very different if it was felt that Sturgeon had handled the pandemic less well than Johnson.
It is important for any democracy to have multiple parties. An independent Scotland will NOT be the personal fiefdom of the SNP. Support for independence is NOT support for the perpetual rule of the SNP.
When was the last time he reported something strongly sourced and truthful that you DIDN'T like?
A couple of threads comparing MHRA, EMA and FDA approaches:
https://twitter.com/hildabast/status/1343425399393415168
https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1344306446910058496
If you just put all the over 50s in a protective box, there would be enough cases, if you let COVID rip, to overwhelm the NHS, from the younger cohorts.
The Dutch site can be incorporated into the EU supply chain but it needs to be added to the approval submission which would be done post approval rather than now which would slow things down.