What does Salmond want and what will he achieve? – politicalbetting.com

justin124 said:

malcolmg said:

justin124 said:

On what basis would Salmond have any right to participate in the Debates being lined up?There is no history of support for ALBA - or any polling available to suggest a massive surge ( unlike for the Brexit Party in Spring 2019). Maybe the SNP would go to the Courts to prevent his particpation.

Yes that will look good , they are all bricking it as he will wipe the floor with them in debates.

But there is no reasonable basis for including him given this party has no track record of support. Legal action may not be required - indeed were Salmond to be admitted to the Debates, leaders of other minor parties - eg UKIP - could demand a place too. He has no basis from being exempt from the rules set out by the broadcasters.

They just set rules that include him, make it only parties that have constituency MP's. That saves us having to watch Harvie's ugly mush whining away.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1375791114540748802

I think some of these statements may be unwise

My irony meter exploded about four times just reading it.

Assuming he was referring to Alba and not the SNP itself.

Just heard Kenny Macaskill has quit SNP and is standing for Alba. Not a surprise but time Cherrybums fell off the fence and joined the fray

MattW said:

JonathanD said:

MaxPB said:

JonathanD said:

Interesting vaccine production chart. For all the hoorah, the UKs vaccine production has actually been very poor. Oxford Unis vaccine gave us a head start that we seem to have squandered.

https://twitter.com/GitaGopinath/status/1375557532224225282?s=19

No, it's because this country was a vaccine nobody before the VTF. We only made a few million doses of Japanese encephalitis vaccine per year domestically. Spinning up to the planned 600m capacity this year and 1bn capacity next year takes a lot of time and planning. If it wasn't for the VTF we'd have relying 100% on imports.

When AZ was talking about delivery of millions of doses being delivered last autumn, was that UK production or imported?

Because if it was UK production then it must have been thought that we had the capacity back then and so any failure in delivery must have been due to a problem in manufacturing.

Also, even now we are still not managing to produce to our capacity (despite previous talk about having ironed out the difficulties).

The Marburg plant in Germany is about to come online for the Biontech jag and that appears to have been a much later addition than ours.

Important to learn what has gone right and wrong as when the unexpected happens we will have to develop capacity from scratch rather than relying on what's sitting around already.

Pfizer seem to have ramped up more successfully than some.

The Marburg plant was purchased in Nov, so there to initial production will be approx 6 months.

For AZ, a complication is that all of their overseas production is via licensed 3rd parties.

There’s a big difference between buying an already set up biological manufacturing facility, and building one from scratch.

The other complication for AZN is that they are charging a low price, so they don’t have potential billions of cash flow coming in to justify such investments.

YBarddCwsc said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Completely off thread (sorry) but I'd welcome any legal insights into this one.

I live in England and am the owner of a residential property in another country which I let out. However, due to recent relaxations in applicable Covid rules, I am once again able to let it out in that country and wish to do so in early April.

The rules in England with regard to international travel explicitly give an exemption for travel “in connection with the purchase, sale, letting or rental of a residential property”. Due to Covid restrictions I haven't visited the property in six months, as a result of which the buildings insurance can't apply. It needs at the very least a thorough inspection and probable action to deal with several problems, plus routine maintenance to get on top of all the usual jobs normally done over the winter. I am praying that there isn't months of internal water damage arising from a lost tile or the like, let alone a break in. I won't know until I get there. Clearly I can't let it out to visitors until all this is sorted out.

So I am going to complete the required form "Coronavirus (COVID-19): declaration form for international travel from England from 29 March 2021" and having met all the criteria expect to be allowed out of England. I think I'm also acting reasonably, as well as within the law on international travel. The property is self-contained, and isolated, and I won't interact with a soul while I'm there. Frankly I'm worried sick about what might have happened to it.

One other thing. The other country is Wales. And that's the legal point. If someone has a valid reason within the law to travel from England to outside of the UK, does the Welsh Government have any powers stop them using the same reasons to travel from England to Wales?

If you travel by car from England to Wales, you will likely be stopped.

There are police stationed on the main roads that are the entry points to Wales, stopping cars (probably ones registered in England) & finding out what their purpose of travel is. You will get a fine.

Drakeford has a slate curtain along the border. You will have to wait till Drakeford makes it a woolly curtain.

Thanks. I have a £200,000 asset wasting away, will not be using main roads, and so am prepared to risk a fine of dubious legality. The question is whether Drakeford really has legal powers to impose one. His statements so far suggest that he is justifying legal sanctions on tourists travelling into Wales on the grounds that they wouldn't have a valid reason to travel in England either until 12th April. But I will not be a tourist and will have a valid reason to travel within England, so what are the legal powers?

There are plenty of examples in the Welsh press of second-home owners turning up, and being reported to the police by neighbours and sent back home with a fat fine.

I'd advise waiting till Drakeford opens the border. But, if you want a complicated life, by all means get a fine and contest it through the courts.

My guess is Drakeford has the powers because health is devolved, and so the Welsh Government is allowed to take such actions as deemed necessary to control the pandemic.

There are two countries involved in travel between England and anywhere else, and you will always need to obey both country's restrictions, whether the second country is Spain or Fiji ... or Wales.

In fact, the most amusing incident occurred in Llanelli.

A local resident noticed that every Friday, a house in his street was visited by a second-homer who stayed a few hours and then drove off .. only to return the following Friday for another few hours short visit. Was this really essential travel?

The resident complained to his local Member of the Senedd, Lee Waters.

And discovered that the second-homer was ... err ... his local Member of the Senedd, Lee Waters.

This, we found out that Lee Waters and family do not actually live in Llanelli -- as claimed on Labour's election literature -- but in Cardiff. He only visits his Llanelli residence once a week.

Similarly, we have discovered that the Labour Senedd Member for Islwyn ... lives in Wiltshire.

Llanelli is one seat that might just be worth watching. The Tories cut Labour’s majority to under 5,000 at the GE and it wouldn’t take too much churn from Labour and UKIP to make it a three-way marginal.

Does anyone know if Siân Caiach is standing again? I imagine Plaid wouldn’t relish that given recent events in Carmarthenshire.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Completely off thread (sorry) but I'd welcome any legal insights into this one.

I live in England and am the owner of a residential property in another country which I let out. However, due to recent relaxations in applicable Covid rules, I am once again able to let it out in that country and wish to do so in early April.

The rules in England with regard to international travel explicitly give an exemption for travel “in connection with the purchase, sale, letting or rental of a residential property”. Due to Covid restrictions I haven't visited the property in six months, as a result of which the buildings insurance can't apply. It needs at the very least a thorough inspection and probable action to deal with several problems, plus routine maintenance to get on top of all the usual jobs normally done over the winter. I am praying that there isn't months of internal water damage arising from a lost tile or the like, let alone a break in. I won't know until I get there. Clearly I can't let it out to visitors until all this is sorted out.

So I am going to complete the required form "Coronavirus (COVID-19): declaration form for international travel from England from 29 March 2021" and having met all the criteria expect to be allowed out of England. I think I'm also acting reasonably, as well as within the law on international travel. The property is self-contained, and isolated, and I won't interact with a soul while I'm there. Frankly I'm worried sick about what might have happened to it.

One other thing. The other country is Wales. And that's the legal point. If someone has a valid reason within the law to travel from England to outside of the UK, does the Welsh Government have any powers stop them using the same reasons to travel from England to Wales?

If you travel by car from England to Wales, you will likely be stopped.

There are police stationed on the main roads that are the entry points to Wales, stopping cars (probably ones registered in England) & finding out what their purpose of travel is. You will get a fine.

Drakeford has a slate curtain along the border. You will have to wait till Drakeford makes it a woolly curtain.

Thanks. I have a £200,000 asset wasting away, will not be using main roads, and so am prepared to risk a fine of dubious legality. The question is whether Drakeford really has legal powers to impose one. His statements so far suggest that he is justifying legal sanctions on tourists travelling into Wales on the grounds that they wouldn't have a valid reason to travel in England either until 12th April. But I will not be a tourist and will have a valid reason to travel within England, so what are the legal powers?

From my other link. Yes, should be OK to maintain it.

"I do not live in Wales, can I travel to Wales, or from within the UK, for a holiday or to visit family and friends?

In general no. Travel into Wales is not allowed without a reasonable excuse, for example, travelling for work purposes. Visiting family and friends or having a holiday is not currently considered a reasonable excuse.

If you are considering travelling to Wales from within the UK, you will need to ensure that you follow the rules where you live."

Wulfrun_Phil said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Completely off thread (sorry) but I'd welcome any legal insights into this one.

I live in England and am the owner of a residential property in another country which I let out. However, due to recent relaxations in applicable Covid rules, I am once again able to let it out in that country and wish to do so in early April.

The rules in England with regard to international travel explicitly give an exemption for travel “in connection with the purchase, sale, letting or rental of a residential property”. Due to Covid restrictions I haven't visited the property in six months, as a result of which the buildings insurance can't apply. It needs at the very least a thorough inspection and probable action to deal with several problems, plus routine maintenance to get on top of all the usual jobs normally done over the winter. I am praying that there isn't months of internal water damage arising from a lost tile or the like, let alone a break in. I won't know until I get there. Clearly I can't let it out to visitors until all this is sorted out.

So I am going to complete the required form "Coronavirus (COVID-19): declaration form for international travel from England from 29 March 2021" and having met all the criteria expect to be allowed out of England. I think I'm also acting reasonably, as well as within the law on international travel. The property is self-contained, and isolated, and I won't interact with a soul while I'm there. Frankly I'm worried sick about what might have happened to it.

One other thing. The other country is Wales. And that's the legal point. If someone has a valid reason within the law to travel from England to outside of the UK, does the Welsh Government have any powers stop them using the same reasons to travel from England to Wales?

If you travel by car from England to Wales, you will likely be stopped.

There are police stationed on the main roads that are the entry points to Wales, stopping cars (probably ones registered in England) & finding out what their purpose of travel is. You will get a fine.

Drakeford has a slate curtain along the border. You will have to wait till Drakeford makes it a woolly curtain.

Thanks. I have a £200,000 asset wasting away, will not be using main roads, and so am prepared to risk a fine of dubious legality. The question is whether Drakeford really has legal powers to impose one. His statements so far suggest that he is justifying legal sanctions on tourists travelling into Wales on the grounds that they wouldn't have a valid reason to travel in England either until 12th April. But I will not be a tourist and will have a valid reason to travel within England, so what are the legal powers?

Middle of the night. No lights. Full send on a back road like the A490. Take your number plate off for bonus points.

So I spent the morning leafleting with a Tory MSP. There is some concern about what Salmond might do. Its not so much the new party, its more him. He is a giant in Scottish politics, a bit battered and tainted but a giant none the less.

Looking at the list seats it looks to me as if the damage might be spread around a bit with Greens and Labour the most immediately in the firing line but its not long until the Tories start to take damage. Personally, I am a bit concerned.

Theuniondivvie said:

MarqueeMark said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

On what basis would Salmond have any right to participate in the Debates being lined up?There is no history of support for ALBA - or any polling available to suggest a massive surge ( unlike for the Brexit Party in Spring 2019). Maybe the SNP would go to the Courts to prevent his particpation.

And how will that help

Sturgeon taking court action to silence Salmond - time for popcorn

She could just decide not to turn up to the debate like your hero.

And get the same amount of shit flung in her direction - and by the self-same people - as Boris did? That will be quite the spectacle....

I was joking. She’s not a coward...

She just has aa very very bad memory

I wonder why when the shit hit the fan - that was a time where she really had to be somewhere else than the daily "covid" presser

Earlier this month, he sat for two hours with a group of presidential historians, pressing them hard on how FDR and LBJ had moved swiftly to make changes so profound and systemic they endure to this day. At the Thursday press conference, Biden made explicit the scale of his ambition. “I want to change the paradigm,” he said, three times.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/26/joe-biden-left-parties-power-radical-winning

algarkirk said:

ping said:

algarkirk said:

Thank you for an excellent analysis.

However, from the perspective of now, Scottish independence looks doomed. There simply are too many obstacles in the way, from separatist capacity to devour itself, through Boris and Westminster, not forgetting border, currency, bank of last resort and EU issues, to actually winning a referendum if there were one. All that IMHO puts actually achieving independence in the next 10-15 years at 25/1 or longer.

Grievance of course is not doomed, but to complain about Scottish grievance is to be a sailor complaining about the sea.

I’d take as much 25/1 as I could get my hands on.

I’d back you down to 6/4

As a a matter of interest is anyone offering odds/market on Scotland achieving independence by year X?

I'll offer odds of Y for stakes of up to Z.

ydoethur said:

NorthCadboll said:

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

I have today broken my promise to myself not to comment on Scottish political matters so apologies for that. Nevertheless, as an outsider, there appears to be a sort of binary thinking about all of this, Indy voters for Greens going to x, list votes going to y etc etc etc. What are Alba’s domestic policies? I cannot, simply cannot, see a young, idealistic, leftist, pro-Indy Green voter moving to a party led by a man whose own fracking Counsel admitted in closing submissions that his client would not be on trial if he had “been a better man”. While short of criminal culpability it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement. And surely any personal vote Sturgeon has ain’t going to Salmond anytime soon?

Look up the Green MSP's, a bigger bunch of no marks you will not have seen. Even if the small amount of Green voters don't shift and many are for independence and not Green, the key is the almost 1 million list SNP votes. With that SNP got 4 list seats , any significant shift of that near million votes will wipe out Greens , and many of the London parties. Just 6% will guarantee 6 seats ( 1 SNP ).

not often I agree with Malcolm but apart from Andy Wightman the Scottish Greens are complete numpties with wee Patrick and the ginger snap. Still think they could have found a Scot for co-leader instead of a Canadian much as though I love Canadians.

Wightman’s off, isn’t he? After being kicked out over the transgender row.

Or is he standing again and gallantly losing?

He was standing as an Independent on the Highlands list last I heard.

noneoftheabove said:

algarkirk said:

ping said:

algarkirk said:

Thank you for an excellent analysis.

However, from the perspective of now, Scottish independence looks doomed. There simply are too many obstacles in the way, from separatist capacity to devour itself, through Boris and Westminster, not forgetting border, currency, bank of last resort and EU issues, to actually winning a referendum if there were one. All that IMHO puts actually achieving independence in the next 10-15 years at 25/1 or longer.

Grievance of course is not doomed, but to complain about Scottish grievance is to be a sailor complaining about the sea.

I’d take as much 25/1 as I could get my hands on.

I’d back you down to 6/4

As a a matter of interest is anyone offering odds/market on Scotland achieving independence by year X?

I'll offer odds of Y for stakes of up to Z.

Looks like a tricky one for establishing a price and that no-one is doing it.

Macron is going to wait until Wednesday before deciding on a new lockdown and closing schools...
https://twitter.com/Mediavenir/status/1375764539006971905

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1375799747555037185?s=19

williamglenn said:

Macron is going to wait until Wednesday before deciding on a new lockdown and closing schools...
https://twitter.com/Mediavenir/status/1375764539006971905

Nearly 42k new cases recorded in France yesterday. He's a bit slow pressing the panic button to my mind.

.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1375799747555037185?s=19

How is this projection made? I can't recall seeing any polls that list Alba.

Edit: Oh, I'm an idiot.

Floater said:

https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1375777521971646468

A awesome pic

Makes you wonder what the story behind it is.

Afternoon all

The Salmond-Sturgeon imbroglio isn't quite Lloyd George-Asquith in all honesty though it does seem to reflect the irretrievable breakdown of a once close personal relationship.

It doesn't tell us much about independence - Sturgeon doesn't want it - talking about it is one thing but as long as she has Johnson in Downing Street she can hold the SNP together on a line of "I want to have another referendum but that nasty Tory in London won't let me". It is of course a mutually re-enforcing meme as it works equally well for Johnson who can be the bulwark against the "nasty Nationalists" and claim only the Conservatives will defend the Union (which isn't true). As I've said before, the relationship between Sturgeon and Johnson is symbiotic and both benefit hugely from the current stand-off.

Once that's understood, everything else make sense. Johnson isn't bothered about the Scottish elections - he wins both ways. I suspect he'd be happier if Sturgeon remained FM - the alternative, a cobbled together anti-SNP Unionist coalition, would provide Party management issues - could the Scottish Conservatives sit in a Cabinet with a Labour FM and the Liberal Democrats?

It may be Salmond is foreshadowing the politics of an independent Scotland which would inevitably see the SNP schism (the truth is the SNP will be fine as long as it never achieves its goal. That's true of all parties. If you are working off a nebulous ideal such as conservatism, socialism or liberalism, that's easy but if your raison d'etre is a defined event, the problems start when that event happens - look at UKIP for example).

The resulting re-definition of politics in an independent Scotland would be, as we've seen elsewhere (Ireland is an imprecise example) the creation of at least two competing blocs (sometimes it's three but generally two). You can call them "centre-left" or "centre-right" or rural vs urban or highland vs lowland or whatever you like. It may be Salmond's Alba is the pre-cursor of the centre-right bloc I'm not sure.

DavidL said:

So I spent the morning leafleting with a Tory MSP. There is some concern about what Salmond might do. Its not so much the new party, its more him. He is a giant in Scottish politics, a bit battered and tainted but a giant none the less.

Looking at the list seats it looks to me as if the damage might be spread around a bit with Greens and Labour the most immediately in the firing line but its not long until the Tories start to take damage. Personally, I am a bit concerned.

Fair play, that's a bit more nuanced than 'hammer blow to the independence cause' type headlines beloved of red top headline writers. Jim Naughtie and Nick Robinson pursuing the same line on R4 this am persuades me that Jim should stick to the Bookclub thing and getting US politics wrong.

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

ydoethur said:

NorthCadboll said:

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

I have today broken my promise to myself not to comment on Scottish political matters so apologies for that. Nevertheless, as an outsider, there appears to be a sort of binary thinking about all of this, Indy voters for Greens going to x, list votes going to y etc etc etc. What are Alba’s domestic policies? I cannot, simply cannot, see a young, idealistic, leftist, pro-Indy Green voter moving to a party led by a man whose own fracking Counsel admitted in closing submissions that his client would not be on trial if he had “been a better man”. While short of criminal culpability it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement. And surely any personal vote Sturgeon has ain’t going to Salmond anytime soon?

Look up the Green MSP's, a bigger bunch of no marks you will not have seen. Even if the small amount of Green voters don't shift and many are for independence and not Green, the key is the almost 1 million list SNP votes. With that SNP got 4 list seats , any significant shift of that near million votes will wipe out Greens , and many of the London parties. Just 6% will guarantee 6 seats ( 1 SNP ).

not often I agree with Malcolm but apart from Andy Wightman the Scottish Greens are complete numpties with wee Patrick and the ginger snap. Still think they could have found a Scot for co-leader instead of a Canadian much as though I love Canadians.

Wightman’s off, isn’t he? After being kicked out over the transgender row.

Or is he standing again and gallantly losing?

He was standing as an Independent on the Highlands list last I heard.

Yes his helping on the committee will be of little benefit now.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/jamesmatthewsky/status/1375795893937528834

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1375801494746898434?s=20

NorthCadboll said:

malcolmg said:

NorthCadboll said:

Just heard Kenny Macaskill has quit SNP and is standing for Alba. Not a surprise but time Cherrybums fell off the fence and joined the fray

Hello NC, long time no hear , hope you are well.

I am hanging on in there. Spent a rather solitary year hiding from everyone to avoid getting covid but now had 1st doze since in grp 6 (those with underlying health issues) but little desire to venture forth. Been keeping up daily with topics on here and David's Saturday epistles but now Eck has decided to liven up what would otherwise have been the dullest of elections since Gordon Brown called the wee woman a racist, happy to return to upset the troops.

Good to see you back , will certainly be a lot more interesting now, Sturgeon and her acolytes bricking it..

TimT said:

Floater said:

https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1375777521971646468

A awesome pic

Makes you wonder what the story behind it is.

Abbey Covid.

A thought on the belief of some (eg Malcolm) that Sturgeon just likes being FM and doesn't care about Sindy -

Is this a view mainly found amongst Sindy supporters of a centre right disposition?

If so, could it have something to do with the fact that, until Sindy is achieved, such people are stuck with voting against their own politics for a centre left party, and having to support a centre left government?

Because if that were me, I would find such a situation irritating and I would be impatient to get out of it. I'd be more likely to be getting twitchy than somebody who quite liked Sturgeon and the policies of the SNP.

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, Alba describes itself as supporting 'The promotion of all Scottish interests, and the building of an economically successful and socially-just independent country, through the pursuit of a social democratic programme.'
https://www.albaparty.org/about_alba

Conservative voters are not going to vote for a social democratic party even if Scotland went independent and Scottish Conservative voters are overwhelmingly anti independence and pro Union now

It's fortunate for them Sturgeon and the SNP leadership are also opposed to independence (as distinct from being pro-Union, there's a nuance there). The other misconception is Johnson is opposed to the SNP - he's not. He'd obviously prefer a Conservative majority at Holyrood but he knows that's not going to happen and a weakened SNP Government is the next best option.

Sturgeon at Holyrood helps Johnson because her talk about independence re-enforces his claim as the only bulwark against independence and in support of the Union (which helps shore up the Conservative share and enables him to paint Labour as being less than wholly pro-Union). Johnson helps Sturgeon because he provides a target for her to rally the SNP vote base as well as an excuse for why independence won't happen.

The alternative, a cobbled together anti-SNP coalition of divergent Unionist parties, is going to cause the Conservatives and Labour problems. Can you really envisage Scottish Conservatives around the Cabinet table at Holyrood supporting a Labour FM?

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, Alba describes itself as supporting 'The promotion of all Scottish interests, and the building of an economically successful and socially-just independent country, through the pursuit of a social democratic programme.'
https://www.albaparty.org/about_alba

Conservative voters are not going to vote for a social democratic party even if Scotland went independent and Scottish Conservative voters are overwhelmingly anti independence and pro Union now

It's fortunate for them Sturgeon and the SNP leadership are also opposed to independence (as distinct from being pro-Union, there's a nuance there). The other misconception is Johnson is opposed to the SNP - he's not. He'd obviously prefer a Conservative majority at Holyrood but he knows that's not going to happen and a weakened SNP Government is the next best option.

Sturgeon at Holyrood helps Johnson because her talk about independence re-enforces his claim as the only bulwark against independence and in support of the Union (which helps shore up the Conservative share and enables him to paint Labour as being less than wholly pro-Union). Johnson helps Sturgeon because he provides a target for her to rally the SNP vote base as well as an excuse for why independence won't happen.

The alternative, a cobbled together anti-SNP coalition of divergent Unionist parties, is going to cause the Conservatives and Labour problems. Can you really envisage Scottish Conservatives around the Cabinet table at Holyrood supporting a Labour FM?

More likely they would vote against indyref2 and keep a lameduck Sturgeon in office if the SNP won most seats but the Unionist parties won a majority overall, as was the case when they propped up Salmond from 2007-2011 when he led an SNP minority government

On TV last night I heard Salmond mention the need for women-only spaces.

Sounds to me like there will soon be a Cherry on the top of his cake.


On a totally different topic, Tories round here going big on the 4.9% rise in council tax. Easy stick to beat Labour with.

kinabalu said:

A thought on the belief of some (eg Malcolm) that Sturgeon just likes being FM and doesn't care about Sindy -

Is this a view mainly found amongst Sindy supporters of a centre right disposition?

If so, could it have something to do with the fact that, until Sindy is achieved, such people are stuck with voting against their own politics for a centre left party, and having to support a centre left government?

Because if that were me, I would find such a situation irritating and I would be impatient to get out of it. I'd be more likely to be getting twitchy than somebody who quite liked Sturgeon and the policies of the SNP.

That's not how politics works.

Sturgeon can keep talking about independence (and that keeps the vote base happy) safe in the knowledge as long as Johnson and the Conservatives are in power, nothing will happen.

The SNP remains the main political vehicle for those seeking an independent Scotland so if that is your primary political objective, the rest of it (whether they are centre-left or centre-right, doesn't matter).

It is of course not in Johnson's interests (or Sturgeon's) for there to be a second referendum. There's too much risk for both sides - the status quo works well for both of them.

Dura_Ace said:

TimT said:

Floater said:

https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1375777521971646468

A awesome pic

Makes you wonder what the story behind it is.

Abbey Covid.

So that would be Paul on the gurney?

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

ping said:

DavidL said:

So I spent the morning leafleting with a Tory MSP. There is some concern about what Salmond might do. Its not so much the new party, its more him. He is a giant in Scottish politics, a bit battered and tainted but a giant none the less.

Looking at the list seats it looks to me as if the damage might be spread around a bit with Greens and Labour the most immediately in the firing line but its not long until the Tories start to take damage. Personally, I am a bit concerned.

Post-Indy, I think there’s a decent chance ALBA absorbs much of the Scon vote. A medium-long term existential threat to the Scons, IMo

I doubt it, Alba describes itself as supporting 'The promotion of all Scottish interests, and the building of an economically successful and socially-just independent country, through the pursuit of a social democratic programme.'
https://www.albaparty.org/about_alba

Conservative voters are not going to vote for a social democratic party even if Scotland went independent and Scottish Conservative voters are overwhelmingly anti independence and pro Union now

Conservative voters are already voting for a social democratic party. There is nothing SCon politicians are saying that could not have been said by SLab.

The fact the current Conservative party is not pursuing pure Thatcherism does not change the fact that on economics it is still right of Labour which is even more statist, as indeed are the SNP, the Greens and it seems Alba.

If Tory voters want a smaller state they might go LD or RefUK, they will not go Alba

SandyRentool said:

On TV last night I heard Salmond mention the need for women-only spaces.

Sounds to me like there will soon be a Cherry on the top of his cake.


On a totally different topic, Tories round here going big on the 4.9% rise in council tax. Easy stick to beat Labour with.

I think, very sadly, that Joanna Cherry is seriously ill.

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1375787105054507009?s=19

The wire becomes reality....

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1375624879744163841?s=19

The problem with this type of approach is it provides perverse incentives. San francisco stopped charging theft under a certain value, so people just shoplift continuously making sure each time to be below the level.

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1375803774900527105

HYUFD said:

More likely they would vote against indyref2 and keep a lameduck Sturgeon in office if the SNP won most seats but the Unionist parties won a majority overall, as was the case when they propped up Salmond from 2007-2011 when he led an SNP minority government

2007 was the breakthrough election for Salmond though the SNP only won 31%. The Conservatives, Labour and LDs won 55% so any independence referendum looked a long way off at that time.

I'm not sure it's a useful comparison for today.

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

I doubt it, Alba describes itself as supporting 'The promotion of all Scottish interests, and the building of an economically successful and socially-just independent country, through the pursuit of a social democratic programme.'
https://www.albaparty.org/about_alba

Conservative voters are not going to vote for a social democratic party even if Scotland went independent and Scottish Conservative voters are overwhelmingly anti independence and pro Union now

It's fortunate for them Sturgeon and the SNP leadership are also opposed to independence (as distinct from being pro-Union, there's a nuance there). The other misconception is Johnson is opposed to the SNP - he's not. He'd obviously prefer a Conservative majority at Holyrood but he knows that's not going to happen and a weakened SNP Government is the next best option.

Sturgeon at Holyrood helps Johnson because her talk about independence re-enforces his claim as the only bulwark against independence and in support of the Union (which helps shore up the Conservative share and enables him to paint Labour as being less than wholly pro-Union). Johnson helps Sturgeon because he provides a target for her to rally the SNP vote base as well as an excuse for why independence won't happen.

The alternative, a cobbled together anti-SNP coalition of divergent Unionist parties, is going to cause the Conservatives and Labour problems. Can you really envisage Scottish Conservatives around the Cabinet table at Holyrood supporting a Labour FM?

In answer to your last question, no. In the unlikely event of a unionist majority, the most likely outcome is simply another SNP minority government, because the SNP would still be the largest party. The second most likely is a Lab/LD minority government, should the SNP decide that it needs a period of renewal in opposition or if the unionist parties determine that they want the SNP removed.

Either way, no other party is going to make any kind of formal arrangement with the Tories. It'd be electoral kryptonite for them.

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

So I spent the morning leafleting with a Tory MSP. There is some concern about what Salmond might do. Its not so much the new party, its more him. He is a giant in Scottish politics, a bit battered and tainted but a giant none the less.

Looking at the list seats it looks to me as if the damage might be spread around a bit with Greens and Labour the most immediately in the firing line but its not long until the Tories start to take damage. Personally, I am a bit concerned.

Fair play, that's a bit more nuanced than 'hammer blow to the independence cause' type headlines beloved of red top headline writers. Jim Naughtie and Nick Robinson pursuing the same line on R4 this am persuades me that Jim should stick to the Bookclub thing and getting US politics wrong.

The best hope from the Unionist perspective is that Sturgeon and Salmond start taking lumps out of each other and put a lot of people off both of them. Salmond is much more likely to make effective digs at Sturgeon than the leaders of any of the Unionist parties post Ruth. In fact he will put them even further into the shade. Spontaneity, wit and telling phrases are really not what Ross, Sarwar and Rennie bring to mind, sadly.

I do not underestimate Salmond. For all his faults he is a remarkable operator.

Mebbes, and it will be interesting to see how long Salmond’s claim that Alba will be running an entirely positive campaign lasts. I do wonder how fresh and twitchy his political antennae are now though. Salmond obviously has a loyal constituency (as seen on here) but polling so far suggests that voters think he was the loser out of the enquiry bourach.

We definitely need fresh polling, there hasn’t even been a poll conducted (or released anyway) since Sturgeon was cleared by Hamilton. I bet there’s a pollster somewhere currently tearing their hair out as they collate responses for a Scottish poll without Alba being an option on the vi questions..

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1375787105054507009?s=19

I don't know about the rest of the article but I think that particular comment is absolutely right.

Scott_xP said:

stodge said:

the truth is the SNP will be fine as long as it never achieves its goal. That's true of all parties. If you are working off a nebulous ideal such as conservatism, socialism or liberalism, that's easy but if your raison d'etre is a defined event, the problems start when that event happens - look at UKIP for example

BoZo is extremely lucky his poor handling of Covid completely overshadowed the catastrofuck of Brexit.

For now.

BoZo's luck is that while he has handled Covid badly the EU has handled it so badly that most people will be glad the UK is no longer a member of it.

HYUFD said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

ping said:

DavidL said:

So I spent the morning leafleting with a Tory MSP. There is some concern about what Salmond might do. Its not so much the new party, its more him. He is a giant in Scottish politics, a bit battered and tainted but a giant none the less.

Looking at the list seats it looks to me as if the damage might be spread around a bit with Greens and Labour the most immediately in the firing line but its not long until the Tories start to take damage. Personally, I am a bit concerned.

Post-Indy, I think there’s a decent chance ALBA absorbs much of the Scon vote. A medium-long term existential threat to the Scons, IMo

I doubt it, Alba describes itself as supporting 'The promotion of all Scottish interests, and the building of an economically successful and socially-just independent country, through the pursuit of a social democratic programme.'
https://www.albaparty.org/about_alba

Conservative voters are not going to vote for a social democratic party even if Scotland went independent and Scottish Conservative voters are overwhelmingly anti independence and pro Union now

Conservative voters are already voting for a social democratic party. There is nothing SCon politicians are saying that could not have been said by SLab.

The fact the current Conservative party is not pursuing pure Thatcherism does not change the fact that on economics it is still right of Labour which is even more statist, as indeed are the SNP, the Greens and it seems Alba.

If Tory voters want a smaller state they might go LD or RefUK, they will not go Alba

I think the PM is between SKS and Jezza in terms of small state

HYUFD said:

Excellent article from David Herdson.

If Alba got 20%+ then it could cause a pro independence supermajority but as it is due to Salmond's unpopularity it is likely to only get around 4-5%. That will mean it would not elect many MSPs but could cost the Greens MSPs on the list and the SNP list MSPs in the borders. As a result an SNP majority would be unlikely and there could even be a Unionist majority if the nationalist vote is split on the list and that elects Unionist list MSPs as a result.

A Unionist majority would prove a major blow to Sturgeon, perhaps fatal

All of a sudden you are counting the Scxottish Greens in your definitions of unionist vs pro-indy.

The excitement is unbearable. First the new party and now this.

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

JonathanD said:

MaxPB said:

JonathanD said:

Interesting vaccine production chart. For all the hoorah, the UKs vaccine production has actually been very poor. Oxford Unis vaccine gave us a head start that we seem to have squandered.

https://twitter.com/GitaGopinath/status/1375557532224225282?s=19

No, it's because this country was a vaccine nobody before the VTF. We only made a few million doses of Japanese encephalitis vaccine per year domestically. Spinning up to the planned 600m capacity this year and 1bn capacity next year takes a lot of time and planning. If it wasn't for the VTF we'd have relying 100% on imports.

When AZ was talking about delivery of millions of doses being delivered last autumn, was that UK production or imported?

Because if it was UK production then it must have been thought that we had the capacity back then and so any failure in delivery must have been due to a problem in manufacturing.

Also, even now we are still not managing to produce to our capacity (despite previous talk about having ironed out the difficulties).

The Marburg plant in Germany is about to come online for the Biontech jag and that appears to have been a much later addition than ours.

Important to learn what has gone right and wrong as when the unexpected happens we will have to develop capacity from scratch rather than relying on what's sitting around already.

Pfizer seem to have ramped up more successfully than some.

The Marburg plant was purchased in Nov, so there to initial production will be approx 6 months.

For AZ, a complication is that all of their overseas production is via licensed 3rd parties.

There’s a big difference between buying an already set up biological manufacturing facility, and building one from scratch.

The other complication for AZN is that they are charging a low price, so they don’t have potential billions of cash flow coming in to justify such investments.

Yes, the latter point is probably the key one. AZ are running *certain* production centres at with much lower RoI structure than say the UK or US where money has been thrown at them.

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

malcolmg said:

DougSeal said:

I have today broken my promise to myself not to comment on Scottish political matters so apologies for that. Nevertheless, as an outsider, there appears to be a sort of binary thinking about all of this, Indy voters for Greens going to x, list votes going to y etc etc etc. What are Alba’s domestic policies? I cannot, simply cannot, see a young, idealistic, leftist, pro-Indy Green voter moving to a party led by a man whose own fracking Counsel admitted in closing submissions that his client would not be on trial if he had “been a better man”. While short of criminal culpability it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement. And surely any personal vote Sturgeon has ain’t going to Salmond anytime soon?

Look up the Green MSP's, a bigger bunch of no marks you will not have seen. Even if the small amount of Green voters don't shift and many are for independence and not Green, the key is the almost 1 million list SNP votes. With that SNP got 4 list seats , any significant shift of that near million votes will wipe out Greens , and many of the London parties. Just 6% will guarantee 6 seats ( 1 SNP ).

The SNP got 135,000 list votes in the West of Scotland last time, and no MSPs. Meaning the Greens got an MSP with 17,000 votes.

What remains to be seen is how many pro-Indy SNP voters Alba can persuade over. But it wouldn't take many before the maths stacks up.

Also, people outwith Scotland need to bear in mind that people were giving the Greens their list vote as a pro Indy party last time. I was in the Lothians and did so because Margo MacDonald had passed away. I knew an SNP list vote was a waste, and Andy Wightman was on the list for the Greens, who I thought would make a decent parliamentarian.

Agree entirely re Mr Wightman. I'm actually peeved he's going on the Highlands list so I can't vote for him (but I can see his logic given his sterling work for land reform and landlordism problems, which BTW incloude such things as Labour councils abusing charitable legislation as well as rthe more traditional Tory and absentee lairds).

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

More likely they would vote against indyref2 and keep a lameduck Sturgeon in office if the SNP won most seats but the Unionist parties won a majority overall, as was the case when they propped up Salmond from 2007-2011 when he led an SNP minority government

2007 was the breakthrough election for Salmond though the SNP only won 31%. The Conservatives, Labour and LDs won 55% so any independence referendum looked a long way off at that time.

I'm not sure it's a useful comparison for today.

If there is a Unionist majority of 1 but the SNP are largest party still, they will need confidence and supply from either the Scottish Conservatives or Scottish Labour just as in 2007, even if then Unionist parties had a majority of 29 and the SNP won only 1 more seat than Labour the principle would be the same

In theory, yes of course but the current polling is scarcely changed from 2016. Indeed, the SNP is slightly up on the 2016 numbers primarily at Labour's expense.

I think a Unionist majority unlikely and I think an SNP majority unlikely.

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1375810518724796418?s=19

We want million....

Likely to reach 30m first doses in tomorrow's announcement.

Its not long ago when the 15m first dose target was seen as irresponsibly optimistic.

US has gone bonkers....women makes crazy statement that Piers Morgan is a definitely racist, not because he said anything racist, but because she felt his tone was racist. Another woman says hold on there, that's crazy, I know this person, he isn't racist..... klaxon goes off, your fired.

BBC News - The Talk: Sharon Osbourne leaves US show after racism row
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56547718

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1375810518724796418?s=19

We want million....

Really crap numbers for NI yet again.

TimT said:

williamglenn said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1375810518724796418?s=19

We want million....

Approaching 300k second doses across the UK.

I guess we can expect Mr Keating's league table of 2nd doses any moment now.

His table will have small print that says excluding quasi-effective doses....