Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
The reason they lost in 2014, and the reason they will lose again, is their inability to answer those questions the head must.
Just like Brexit.
Oh, wait...
So your reason for independence is so Scotland can be allowed to make the same mistakes? And learn nothing?
Tory concedes that Brexit was a mistake shocker.....
I'm trying to get Scott to concede that his position is gloriously two-faced.
Perhaps you'd like to oblige?
kjh nails it above. Those who had strong views on either side of Brexit should take care what they say on Scottish Indy, lest they expose their past contradictions.
Well obviously I gave that a like.
Hang on, Scott has gone over to Indy? I missed this one, surely some mistake.
I read his post as a warning - don't rely on appealing just to the head if you want to prevent Indy.
Dr. Foxy, how is it an English hegemony, when England's the only part of the UK without a devolved Parliament?
Powers have been continually flowing from Westminster to Holyrood. The British taxpayer picked up the tab for HBOS and RBS in the financial crisis.
I did ask you what Scottish interest isn't being taken into account. Any answer for that, beyond an undefined claim of English hegemony?
"That was a party election broadcast on behalf of the Scottish Nationalist Party."
I believe the line above was "why should the Scots stop England having Brexit" or words to that effect. They don't. They just don't want to be dragged along unwillingly to an action which causes significant damage to local jobs and the economy.
Exactly if the Scots want to damage local jobs and the economy they can vote for it themselves.
The cost of flights from India to the UK have rocketed as families rush to avoid tough hotel quarantine regulations from 4am on Friday. Some tickets have gone up five times from £400 for an economy seat to £2,000.
Indra Travel chairman Suresh Kumar said: “People are concerned and desperate to get back and in a frenzy. A normal £400 economy seat from Delhi is [now] anything up to £2,000. Even if you go for business or first class, there are not many around. They are over £3,000."
There are reportedly 42 flights due to come to the UK over the coming week and a total of 10,965 passengers if they are all full.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
It’s very simple and the fact they’ve only just found out is no excuse. What is proposed is utterly reprehensible. And if the players refuse to play this would be killed stone dead.
I don’t begrudge footballers earning big money. But with it comes responsibility. The music has stopped and their time to act has come.
By continuing to put on the shirt, they are complicit in this. They are as bad as the owners.
This seems wildly OTT to me. Sure, the scheme organises the top teams in an elitist club, and that's a pity, in the same way as if you work for a company that merges to create a semi-monopoly. But expecting staff to resign over that general distaste for what management is doing is remote from real life. If the company uses slave labour or endorses Nazism, sure. But disagreement over commercial policy? Nah.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
I've been saying similar things since 2016. The argument that Brexit made independence more likely was always nonsense. Scotland needs to be a part of the UK single market. It is absolutely essential to its future prosperity. That makes the aspiration of returning to the EU highly problematic. The NI border and protocol show how problematic this would be but the scale of the problem is vastly greater between Scotland and rUK where the volume of trade is much greater as is the range of goods.
So, in reality Nationalists have a dilemma. They might proceed on the basis that we remain in the SM with rUK in which case one begins to wonder the point since rUK will determine our currency, our interest rates, will have a veto on borrowing plans (if we want the BoE to remain as a lender of last resort) and our trade policy. Frankly, the current Scottish government has more room for maneuver than Scotland would have under that scenario and the real problem is that it is not in our gift. We would have to ask for it and there is no guarantee that rUK would say yes. If I was TSE I would be suggesting that this is have the divorce, get freedom but still have regular sex with the ex. Possible in theory, somewhat unlikely in practice.
The alternative would be to try for greater independence with, for example, our own currency possibly tied to the Euro and seek EU membership. That would mean we accept that there will be trade friction between us and rUK. Once again, however, so much would be out of our control because the EU would decide our trade relationship with rUK, our interest rates, our borrowing, much of our legislative framework and of course our trade policy internationally.
But the last option would be fine because it's not England. I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the appeal. With the polarisation of politics it doesn't just matter what your opinion is but who you are.
In this case Boris / English bad, Nicola / EU good. If I were a political journalist I would be quoting back random quotes to supporters and saying either Boris or Nicola said this what do you think? They wouldn't have a clue because almost all politicians are devoid of opinion and backbone. At least Corbyn was consistent in blaming Israel for everything!
The last option would be economically damaging for Scotland but you are right that rationality does not come into this. The argument that Scotland would be better off or even as well off on its own is much weaker in 2021 than it was in 2014 (and it was pretty laughable then). Scotland would be voting for higher taxes, lower levels of public services and quite severe austerity for a prolonged period.
We would survive, of course, but the price would be very high. If our identity is so important that we are willing to pay that price so be it but the present lies about this being some cost free option are contemptible.
Trouble is that the B-things have made the force for SIndy more irresistible (it's pretty clear that lots of Scots don't want to be part of a Britain with Brexit and Boris) and the objections more immovable (with England out if the EU, the costs of SIndy go up horribly).
And when an irresistible force meets an immovable object, the first thing that happens is an unpleasant nothing, which is where we are now. Then, at some fairly unpredictable point, something really bad suddenly happens.
For anyone who likes political gossip-most on here I guess- Alan Duncan's book 'In The Thick of It' is a must read. It's funny and as polemics go it doesn't get more bare knuckled than this. If it wasn't for the pandemic and that no one take him seriously it would supply the tabloids with headlines for months. No one escapes. Even the ghastly Guido gets his fifteen minutes.
An interesting insight into some pretty creepy people and I reckon he gets most of them right.
Duncan should pause and wonder, that if everyone he ever came across in politics was such a nasty person to him, maybe he himself was the common factor.
“If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.”
I started a new job. Almost immediately I started to think I'd made a mistake. Nothing was ever satisfactory. After about three months a man I barely knew stopped me in the corridor and said simply, "Don't worry, it isn't you. We all go through it," and walked away.
That was so kind and brave of him, so very much appreciated.
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
I wonder how many on here are consistent on their views. I voted remain as I couldn't see the economic benefit of leaving. I knew that the remain campaign exaggerated the negatives (or lied if you like plain speaking) but the Leave campaign was not convincing despite their lies.
Now I smugly feel the same about Scexit. I can't the upside. I can recognise the xenophobic arguments (Up yours delors / Boris is a bawbag) but I don't see how they make a coherent argument or vision. Not that I will get a vote but I would like an uninterrupted supply of porridge oats, raspberries and whisky!
The cost of flights from India to the UK have rocketed as families rush to avoid tough hotel quarantine regulations from 4am on Friday. Some tickets have gone up five times from £400 for an economy seat to £2,000.
Indra Travel chairman Suresh Kumar said: “People are concerned and desperate to get back and in a frenzy. A normal £400 economy seat from Delhi is [now] anything up to £2,000. Even if you go for business or first class, there are not many around. They are over £3,000."
There are reportedly 42 flights due to come to the UK over the coming week and a total of 10,965 passengers if they are all full.
If Scotland left the UK now it would certainly mean border posts at Berwick and Scotland would have to choose between losing some trade to the EU or losing some of the even larger share of its trade that is done with the rest of the UK
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
His gracious response to the absolute shellacking Reagan gave him and his dignity in defeat showed there was a time when American politicians had class.
A pity he never got the top job, as I think he would have been good at it.
RIP Carter's VP too and he picked a woman, Geraldine Ferraro, to be his VP candidate
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
The story of this flight to Hong Kong is illustrative. All passengers had to have a clear test 72 hours pre-flight, and 14 days quarantine. 47 have tested positive, many at day 12. It sounds as if transmission is happening within quarantine hotels.
We are keeping the passengers for six hours in queues on arrival, indoors in poorly ventilated conditions, perfect covid breeding conditions.
Heathrow's answer to that seems to be less checking.
I would suggest that the answer is fewer flights.
Ha....
A number of years ago, I was in a relationship with an immigration lawyer. So, knew a few in the business as well - friends etc.
At social gatherings, sometimes, people would ask "Could we ever control immigration?"
The answer was something on the lines of - "Of course not. To do that, you would need to detain everyone whose papers aren't perfectly clear at the airports etc. Lock them up in a detention camp until it was sorted out. Stop the "summer courses" as a number of colleges. Shut down on "tourists" who aren't. Real Soviet stuff."
So what people are talking about with full border control is to take the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer and make it real.
Some people, here, speak of the creep of the state with respect to vaccine passports, and other COVID related measures....
If you are liberal on immigration, then the above scenario presents the following - it was once unthinkable, ridiculous. If implemented, how many Farages would appear to demand that it be kept?
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
It’s very simple and the fact they’ve only just found out is no excuse. What is proposed is utterly reprehensible. And if the players refuse to play this would be killed stone dead.
I don’t begrudge footballers earning big money. But with it comes responsibility. The music has stopped and their time to act has come.
By continuing to put on the shirt, they are complicit in this. They are as bad as the owners.
This seems wildly OTT to me. Sure, the scheme organises the top teams in an elitist club, and that's a pity, in the same way as if you work for a company that merges to create a semi-monopoly. But expecting staff to resign over that general distaste for what management is doing is remote from real life. If the company uses slave labour or endorses Nazism, sure. But disagreement over commercial policy? Nah.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
Growing cynical in your old age but in the case of premier league football you are absolutely right. The time to moan about money ruining it was 30 years ago . Lets face it the Champions League and UEFA are hardly angels and the CL is fairly tedious in its format (purely because it maximises money at the moment) . Why the government and a tory government at that are wanting to interfere is beyond me .
I've always wondered how some countries with dense populations have avoided serious problems
In the case of India I suspect it was because the poor didn't actually report any illness as they couldn't afford to be treated.
This however seems different - it's twice what it was and it's not monsoon season which would be a plausible reason for the change (everyone crammed inside).
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
Also the phenomenon that RCS mentioned - self lock down. In this case, everyone in India thought it was over, that it had really passed India by... so they, possibly, reduce personal precautions.
The reason they lost in 2014, and the reason they will lose again, is their inability to answer those questions the head must. On here, for years prior to the referendum we had been picking apart those issues the SNP would not address. This header stands in that fine tradition.
On the big structural issues, none has got better for the SNP since 2014 - save for their sense of grievance. Brexit, Catalonia, oil, vaccines, education, their ability to actually run a country that doesn't look like a shabby banana republic - all have put bigger question marks against the case for independence than existed last time round.
Thank goodness that sense of grievance tops all, eh?
Yes, but since when have referendums been decided by cool analysis of the economic costs?
English arrogance, threats and refusal to take Scottish interests into account are what is driving the break up of the United Kingdom.
That would be the Scotland which voted 55% to stay in the UK in the once in a generation 2014 referendum without any English involvement and the Scotland which has its own Parliament too now unlike England?
Dr. Foxy, how is it an English hegemony, when England's the only part of the UK without a devolved Parliament?
Powers have been continually flowing from Westminster to Holyrood. The British taxpayer picked up the tab for HBOS and RBS in the financial crisis.
I did ask you what Scottish interest isn't being taken into account. Any answer for that, beyond an undefined claim of English hegemony?
"That was a party election broadcast on behalf of the Scottish Nationalist Party."
I believe the line above was "why should the Scots stop England having Brexit" or words to that effect. They don't. They just don't want to be dragged along unwillingly to an action which causes significant damage to local jobs and the economy.
Exactly if the Scots want to damage local jobs and the economy they can vote for it themselves.
I wonder how many on here are consistent on their views. I voted remain as I couldn't see the economic benefit of leaving. I knew that the remain campaign exaggerated the negatives (or lied if you like plain speaking) but the Leave campaign was not convincing despite their lies.
Now I smugly feel the same about Scexit. I can't the upside. I can recognise the xenophobic arguments (Up yours delors / Boris is a bawbag) but I don't see how they make a coherent argument or vision. Not that I will get a vote but I would like an uninterrupted supply of porridge oats, raspberries and whisky!
The remain campaign provided no benefits - people buy and vote for the optimist - when selling the easiest sell is something that makes the buyer feel better / improved.
Leave offered everyone their personal unicorn
Remain offered (at best) more of the same and a lot of people didn't like the same.
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If you read the international climate change reports they do talk about becoming carbon negative throughout the second half of the 21st century, but it is all based on been able to scale feasible carbon capture. Which we cant do at the moment.
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
Giving four days’ notice of shutting off India was a really silly idea. Should have been overnight, with any flights without passengers already in the airport cancelled. The next few days will be absolute chaos at the airports.
They should have also announced that the PM’s trip to India was cancelled as a result of the upgrading of India to Red, rather than giving the impression it was the other way around.
This government's inability to learn is becoming one of its hallmarks
It's a problem with all Western governments and international travel. A massive blind spot affecting the lot of them, taking half-hearted measures and announcing things in advance. They should all have learned their lessons a year ago, but keep making the same mistakes even now.
Heads-up to government for next month - if you're going to allow travel to "Green" countries without quarantine on return, make sure all those on the Green plane are on direct flights, and that passengers from Green and Red countries don't end up in the same queue at Heathrow.
Anecdotal evidence - I know of at least one person who arrived in the UK a couple of days ago from Moscow for study, who was in the UAE (Red country) on holiday over Easter. This sort of thing isn't being picked up by authorities.
I think Foxy mentioned the 'Gujarati Snowbirds' last week. They will presumably be flocking home now before friday.
But, I think they must quarantine for 10 days in a hotel if they do so.
Only Red list countries need to stay in a hotel - if you are returning from a none Red list country you can spend your quarantine at home (spreading it to the rest of the family while doing so).
And that is Foxy's very valid concern.
Spreading what? We are in danger of tarring all red list arrivals as "unclean". This is horrible. The vast majority of red list arrivals do not have Covid. Remember that all travellers to UK must have proof of a negative COVID-19 test within three days of travel.
"It would be nice to think so, but I’m not holding my breath. This is heading towards a major disaster for Scotland"
......and an even bigger one for England.
Neither, happily. Scottish independence isn't going to happen. The hurdles are too high and too many.
In brief they are: Boris, Brexit, Borders. Splitters, Voters, Currency. Tax, Barnett, Westminster.
In Ref1 voters could vote to separate and at the same time hide behind and with England and the EU. Now they can't. You have to take your chances when they come. Like Brexit voters did. They knew it wouldn't come again. Nor will this.
That is an interesting point. Could Brexit have happened without the unsuccessful Scottish Independence referendum?
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
Next stop, Wales. Huge opportunities! Shetland? Isle of Wight? Rutland? Lundy?.....
We would do better creating meaningful, constitutionally protected local government.
Dr. Foxy, how is it an English hegemony, when England's the only part of the UK without a devolved Parliament?
Powers have been continually flowing from Westminster to Holyrood. The British taxpayer picked up the tab for HBOS and RBS in the financial crisis.
I did ask you what Scottish interest isn't being taken into account. Any answer for that, beyond an undefined claim of English hegemony?
"That was a party election broadcast on behalf of the Scottish Nationalist Party."
I believe the line above was "why should the Scots stop England having Brexit" or words to that effect. They don't. They just don't want to be dragged along unwillingly to an action which causes significant damage to local jobs and the economy.
Part of being in a union is that you don't always get your way. That applies to everyone in a union.
Either they accept that and want to be in a union, or they don't.
Yep. That's my point. If you don't want to be treated with democratic contempt then you leave the union...
They weren't treated with "democratic contempt".
They were asked the question, their answer was recorded and included in the national total UK wide. The result was that after all votes were counted Leave won. There's nothing contemptous or undemocratic about that.
If you don't want your votes counted with the votes of others then you need to be truly independent, which means not being in the EU anyway. Otherwise the same thing can happen in the EU, they could vote one way and QMV sends the result the other way - do you consider that to be "democratic contempt"?
The variant. Though so far it's not proven to have any vaccine dilution. It may even be the case that it goes the other way and it's higher transmissibility makes the binding efficiency higher for antibodies. We know that the other major higher transmissibility variant had basically zero vaccine dilution effect.
Dr. Foxy, how is it an English hegemony, when England's the only part of the UK without a devolved Parliament?
Powers have been continually flowing from Westminster to Holyrood. The British taxpayer picked up the tab for HBOS and RBS in the financial crisis.
I did ask you what Scottish interest isn't being taken into account. Any answer for that, beyond an undefined claim of English hegemony?
"That was a party election broadcast on behalf of the Scottish Nationalist Party."
I believe the line above was "why should the Scots stop England having Brexit" or words to that effect. They don't. They just don't want to be dragged along unwillingly to an action which causes significant damage to local jobs and the economy.
Exactly if the Scots want to damage local jobs and the economy they can vote for it themselves.
And they will. It's called Darien syndrome.
Still the most lawless part of central America, which stands in the way of anyone hoping to do the Alaska to Patagonia run. So they still have independence, of sorts!
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
Next stop, Wales. Huge opportunities! Shetland? Isle of Wight? Rutland? Lundy?.....
We would do better creating meaningful, constitutionally protected local government.
What's wrong with that?
If the Welsh wish to control their own destiny, what is wrong with that?
Yes there are huge opportunities. Small states can work very successfully.
I wonder how many on here are consistent on their views. I voted remain as I couldn't see the economic benefit of leaving. I knew that the remain campaign exaggerated the negatives (or lied if you like plain speaking) but the Leave campaign was not convincing despite their lies.
Now I smugly feel the same about Scexit. I can't the upside. I can recognise the xenophobic arguments (Up yours delors / Boris is a bawbag) but I don't see how they make a coherent argument or vision. Not that I will get a vote but I would like an uninterrupted supply of porridge oats, raspberries and whisky!
The most convincing argument against brexit to me at the time, was the potential upsides werent good enough for the risks of the downsides. A stable and prosperous society should strive to improve, but it is a lot easier to promise something better than what we have and underestimate how hard it is to make it look so effortless. The EU SM and customs union is a fairly smooth operating setup. It's only since we have left it we have seen just how traumatic it is for trade. It's hard to appreciate just how a 'non tariff barrier' to trade can wipe out an industry.
I wonder how many on here are consistent on their views. I voted remain as I couldn't see the economic benefit of leaving. I knew that the remain campaign exaggerated the negatives (or lied if you like plain speaking) but the Leave campaign was not convincing despite their lies.
Now I smugly feel the same about Scexit. I can't the upside. I can recognise the xenophobic arguments (Up yours delors / Boris is a bawbag) but I don't see how they make a coherent argument or vision. Not that I will get a vote but I would like an uninterrupted supply of porridge oats, raspberries and whisky!
The most convincing argument against brexit to me at the time, was the potential upsides werent good enough for the risks of the downsides. A stable and prosperous society should strive to improve, but it is a lot easier to promise something better than what we have and underestimate how hard it is to make it look so effortless. The EU SM and customs union is a fairly smooth operating setup. It's only since we have left it we have seen just how traumatic it is for trade. It's hard to appreciate just how a 'non tariff barrier' to trade can wipe out an industry.
So "traumatic" that exports macroeconomically are back to normal already? 🤔
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.
Casino is wrong about the difference between net and gross zero. The crucial factor is not releasing any more fossil carbon. Almost all our offsets are less permanent ways of removing carbon from the carbon cycle.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
Giving four days’ notice of shutting off India was a really silly idea. Should have been overnight, with any flights without passengers already in the airport cancelled. The next few days will be absolute chaos at the airports.
They should have also announced that the PM’s trip to India was cancelled as a result of the upgrading of India to Red, rather than giving the impression it was the other way around.
This government's inability to learn is becoming one of its hallmarks
It's a problem with all Western governments and international travel. A massive blind spot affecting the lot of them, taking half-hearted measures and announcing things in advance. They should all have learned their lessons a year ago, but keep making the same mistakes even now.
Heads-up to government for next month - if you're going to allow travel to "Green" countries without quarantine on return, make sure all those on the Green plane are on direct flights, and that passengers from Green and Red countries don't end up in the same queue at Heathrow.
Anecdotal evidence - I know of at least one person who arrived in the UK a couple of days ago from Moscow for study, who was in the UAE (Red country) on holiday over Easter. This sort of thing isn't being picked up by authorities.
I think Foxy mentioned the 'Gujarati Snowbirds' last week. They will presumably be flocking home now before friday.
But, I think they must quarantine for 10 days in a hotel if they do so.
Only Red list countries need to stay in a hotel - if you are returning from a none Red list country you can spend your quarantine at home (spreading it to the rest of the family while doing so).
And that is Foxy's very valid concern.
Spreading what? We are in danger of tarring all red list arrivals as "unclean". This is horrible. The vast majority of red list arrivals do not have Covid. Remember that all travellers to UK must have proof of a negative COVID-19 test within three days of travel.
If people don't want to quarantine they have the option of not travelling.
Other countries are "unclean" when it comes to the virus. That's not horrible, that's a matter of fact.
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
Giving four days’ notice of shutting off India was a really silly idea. Should have been overnight, with any flights without passengers already in the airport cancelled. The next few days will be absolute chaos at the airports.
They should have also announced that the PM’s trip to India was cancelled as a result of the upgrading of India to Red, rather than giving the impression it was the other way around.
This government's inability to learn is becoming one of its hallmarks
It's a problem with all Western governments and international travel. A massive blind spot affecting the lot of them, taking half-hearted measures and announcing things in advance. They should all have learned their lessons a year ago, but keep making the same mistakes even now.
Heads-up to government for next month - if you're going to allow travel to "Green" countries without quarantine on return, make sure all those on the Green plane are on direct flights, and that passengers from Green and Red countries don't end up in the same queue at Heathrow.
Anecdotal evidence - I know of at least one person who arrived in the UK a couple of days ago from Moscow for study, who was in the UAE (Red country) on holiday over Easter. This sort of thing isn't being picked up by authorities.
I think Foxy mentioned the 'Gujarati Snowbirds' last week. They will presumably be flocking home now before friday.
But, I think they must quarantine for 10 days in a hotel if they do so.
Only Red list countries need to stay in a hotel - if you are returning from a none Red list country you can spend your quarantine at home (spreading it to the rest of the family while doing so).
And that is Foxy's very valid concern.
Spreading what? We are in danger of tarring all red list arrivals as "unclean". This is horrible. The vast majority of red list arrivals do not have Covid. Remember that all travellers to UK must have proof of a negative COVID-19 test within three days of travel.
True, but the problem is flying (including the pre- and post-flight time spent in airports), which we know very clearly by now provides an outstanding environment for transmission. It only takes one person on a flight....
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
It’s very simple and the fact they’ve only just found out is no excuse. What is proposed is utterly reprehensible. And if the players refuse to play this would be killed stone dead.
I don’t begrudge footballers earning big money. But with it comes responsibility. The music has stopped and their time to act has come.
By continuing to put on the shirt, they are complicit in this. They are as bad as the owners.
This seems wildly OTT to me. Sure, the scheme organises the top teams in an elitist club, and that's a pity, in the same way as if you work for a company that merges to create a semi-monopoly. But expecting staff to resign over that general distaste for what management is doing is remote from real life. If the company uses slave labour or endorses Nazism, sure. But disagreement over commercial policy? Nah.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
The owners of the club might own the stadium, the commercial rights and the players contracts. They dont own the fans emotions or support. Without the support and emotions the owners still own something but far, far less valuable. It is a symbiotic relationship.
Find a different billionaire wannabe football owner, or even a JP Morgan competitor, get the big supporters associations on board and one of Klopp or Gerrard as manager, and create Liverpool Kop21 FC and suddenly super league Liverpool could be a white elephant.
Well 50,000 at the cricket is one option, in a mostly unvaccinated population. It's tempting to assume its a new scary variant, and that might be the case, but I think there are probably other factors to consider.
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
What are these opportunities? Simply asserting that they exist is not enough. And the SNP can never demonstrate them.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If you read the international climate change reports they do talk about becoming carbon negative throughout the second half of the 21st century, but it is all based on been able to scale feasible carbon capture. Which we cant do at the moment.
There are some neat ideas out there (especially the artificial limestone ones) but the fact that the CO2 is dispersed through the atmosphere at objectively low concentrations is a tough nut to crack.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Not really, they just become a rights purchaser for the ESL. Ultimately that's not a huge deal for them because they won't be spending extra money, it just gets reallocated from the EPL.
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
The story of this flight to Hong Kong is illustrative. All passengers had to have a clear test 72 hours pre-flight, and 14 days quarantine. 47 have tested positive, many at day 12. It sounds as if transmission is happening within quarantine hotels.
We are keeping the passengers for six hours in queues on arrival, indoors in poorly ventilated conditions, perfect covid breeding conditions.
Heathrow's answer to that seems to be less checking.
I would suggest that the answer is fewer flights.
Ha....
A number of years ago, I was in a relationship with an immigration lawyer. So, knew a few in the business as well - friends etc.
At social gatherings, sometimes, people would ask "Could we ever control immigration?"
The answer was something on the lines of - "Of course not. To do that, you would need to detain everyone whose papers aren't perfectly clear at the airports etc. Lock them up in a detention camp until it was sorted out. Stop the "summer courses" as a number of colleges. Shut down on "tourists" who aren't. Real Soviet stuff."
So what people are talking about with full border control is to take the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer and make it real.
Some people, here, speak of the creep of the state with respect to vaccine passports, and other COVID related measures....
If you are liberal on immigration, then the above scenario presents the following - it was once unthinkable, ridiculous. If implemented, how many Farages would appear to demand that it be kept?
Quite right , just because of the change immigration brings (both to the individual and the countries they leave and come to) it creates reactions and of course any change will have good consequences and bad ones . the bad ones are highlighted by the anti imiigration lobby and the good ones by the pro immigration lobby. Personally I dont see immigration as a national issue (after all I was told at a young age and believe it that there is no difference in people based on their country or skin and hence no need for any major cultural shift or concession ) but an individual issue. If you think about it it is outrageous that a human being born to Earth cannot freely go where they like on that Earth.
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
Next stop, Wales. Huge opportunities! Shetland? Isle of Wight? Rutland? Lundy?.....
We would do better creating meaningful, constitutionally protected local government.
What's wrong with that?
If the Welsh wish to control their own destiny, what is wrong with that?
Yes there are huge opportunities. Small states can work very successfully.
Independence for London please, seeing as the rest of the country have bizarre ideas about how we actually live and don't appreciate our taxes.
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Is that actually the policy mix?
I need to drill into the numbers from the CCC to see how the targets add up, but -78% by 2035 is only -5% more in toto off than the -3% per annum established run rate to get -68% by 2030.
Given that the UK is ahead of the Euro game on the current performance, one political bit is perhaps to preempt the ECCA 2022 in May (http://www.jpi-climate.eu/ecca2021) which Brussels might have planned to use to pre-marginalise the Glasgow Conference later this year having made a dog's breakfast of vaccines.
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
Its a reasonable question to ask - what is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere? I don't think this is a simple question, nor is is necessarily directly correlated to whatever the 'global' temperature is (or indeed is 'optimum').
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Is that actually the policy mix?
I need to drill into the numbers from the CCC to see how the targets add up, but -78% by 2035 is only -5% more in toto off than the -3% per annum established run rate to get -68% by 2030.
Given that the UK is ahead of the Euro game on the current performance, one political bit is perhaps to preempt the ECCA 2022 in May (http://www.jpi-climate.eu/ecca2021) which Brussels might have planned to use to pre-marginalise the Glasgow Conference later this year having made a dog's breakfast of vaccines.
Count Binface has ,as one of his polices, when elected as London Mayor to make Piers Morgan zero emissions by 2030.
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
The story of this flight to Hong Kong is illustrative. All passengers had to have a clear test 72 hours pre-flight, and 14 days quarantine. 47 have tested positive, many at day 12. It sounds as if transmission is happening within quarantine hotels.
We are keeping the passengers for six hours in queues on arrival, indoors in poorly ventilated conditions, perfect covid breeding conditions.
Heathrow's answer to that seems to be less checking.
I would suggest that the answer is fewer flights.
Ha....
A number of years ago, I was in a relationship with an immigration lawyer. So, knew a few in the business as well - friends etc.
At social gatherings, sometimes, people would ask "Could we ever control immigration?"
The answer was something on the lines of - "Of course not. To do that, you would need to detain everyone whose papers aren't perfectly clear at the airports etc. Lock them up in a detention camp until it was sorted out. Stop the "summer courses" as a number of colleges. Shut down on "tourists" who aren't. Real Soviet stuff."
So what people are talking about with full border control is to take the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer and make it real.
Some people, here, speak of the creep of the state with respect to vaccine passports, and other COVID related measures....
If you are liberal on immigration, then the above scenario presents the following - it was once unthinkable, ridiculous. If implemented, how many Farages would appear to demand that it be kept?
Nonsense. They should look at how Singapore, one of the most generous countries in the world to inward immigration, still maintains an iron lock on its border.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Amazon, Disney, or Apple could be one of a number of organisations that could offer very cheap or even free access and fatally undermine Sky and BT offers
Well 50,000 at the cricket is one option, in a mostly unvaccinated population. It's tempting to assume its a new scary variant, and that might be the case, but I think there are probably other factors to consider.
It probably is the variant, we had people saying that the rise here in December was becuase of Christmas shoppers but it was becuase the Kent variant was much more transmissive. The reason I'm not panicking is that higher transmissibility isn't linked with vaccine dilution, I think that's also why the scientists aren't panicking. The red listing is the right decision though, we should have done it two weeks ago when we added Bangladesh and Pakistan to the red list. No need to take that risk even if it's probably not a very big one.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Amazon, Disney, or Apple could be one of a number of organisations that could offer very cheap or even free access and fatally undermine Sky and BT offers
In which case that is good for fans isn't it? I find it incredulous that Sky,UEFA and the Premier League are somehow being seen as guardian angels in this affair.
"So, are there any honest Scottish Nationalists prepared to level with the Scottish people on the fact that Brexit, far from being an additional reason to leave the UK, is actually a major barrier to independence.
I'm not a Scottish Nationalist but I am honest and can answer this. It's both. Brexit demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt why Scotland should leave but at the same time makes it considerably harder to do so. We are therefore heading (because of Brexit) towards the messiest possible Scottish scenario.
And Brexit will be laughing about this. Just luvin' it. That's the sort of thing that Brexit is.
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
What are these opportunities? Simply asserting that they exist is not enough. And the SNP can never demonstrate them.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Actually asserting that they exist is enough. If the SNP do a bad job of managing an independent Scotland they can be voted out and replaced by anyone else.
As for "where" the answer is anywhere. The EU represents 3% of the world's population, England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined represent under 1% of the world's population. The UK had 97% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically or rest of the world). An independent Scotland has 99% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically, the EU itself or the rest of the world).
I agree that the SNP tightening the state's stranglehold on the economy is a terrible idea - but they've done that already in the UK. Independently people have the possibility of realising they need to release the stranglehold, become dynamic like Ireland etc and vote for parties willing to reform the economy in the way it needs to go.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Amazon, Disney, or Apple could be one of a number of organisations that could offer very cheap or even free access and fatally undermine Sky and BT offers
In which case that is good for fans isn't it? I find it incredulous that Sky,UEFA and the Premier League are somehow being seen as guardian angels in this affair.
Sky were actually good for football in the country in the 90s, and the monopoly situation was better for fans than the split rights solution to the monopoly problem that we have now.
Anyway, the key issue being fiercely fought over is whether we have sport with free competition, or entertainment between brands, not whether it is broadcast by Sky or who organises it.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Not really, they just become a rights purchaser for the ESL. Ultimately that's not a huge deal for them because they won't be spending extra money, it just gets reallocated from the EPL.
That assumes that the ESL want to deal with Sky, that the EPL, FA and UEFA will want to deal with anyone who deals with ESL, or that ESL haven't already stitched something up with Mouse TV, Amazon or have their own OTT PPV model. (with apologies for all the TLAs )
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Not really, they just become a rights purchaser for the ESL. Ultimately that's not a huge deal for them because they won't be spending extra money, it just gets reallocated from the EPL.
That's naive.
That's like the insanity of the EU insisting that rights to the Premier League must be split up in order to "increase competition", however individual fixtures are still now only with Sky or BT. It hasn't increased competition or consumer choice, its just meant that if you as a consumer want to watch both you need to pay both Sky and BT now. The cost of buying both Sky and BT is more than what it was to get just Sky alone.
The EU f***ed fans over forcing a split on rights (but allowing a monopoly on fixtures to continue). The same would happen to Sky here, they'd be f***ed over for the same reason fans were - people would want and have to pay for both.
It's possibly exaggerated in comparison to the first wave because they recorded such a small proportion of their actual cases in the first wave (serological estimates put it at 29 times as many people had it than were ever recorded).
That's not to say it's not horrific now (and we have no idea what proportion of actual cases they're picking up) - just that the comparisons are fraught.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Amazon, Disney, or Apple could be one of a number of organisations that could offer very cheap or even free access and fatally undermine Sky and BT offers
In which case that is good for fans isn't it? I find it incredulous that Sky,UEFA and the Premier League are somehow being seen as guardian angels in this affair.
It will create a wealthy elite far removed from most fans and over time see the collapse of football as we know it
I understand the 6 clubs will be excluded from next seasons Champions league and on the present Premier League Table the following would qualify to play
Leicester 3rd West Ham 4th Everton 8th Leeds 10th
And on todays table Man City 1st, Man Utd 2nd, Chelsea 5th, Liverpool 6th, Tottenham 7th, and Arsenal 9th, would not
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
It’s very simple and the fact they’ve only just found out is no excuse. What is proposed is utterly reprehensible. And if the players refuse to play this would be killed stone dead.
I don’t begrudge footballers earning big money. But with it comes responsibility. The music has stopped and their time to act has come.
By continuing to put on the shirt, they are complicit in this. They are as bad as the owners.
This seems wildly OTT to me. Sure, the scheme organises the top teams in an elitist club, and that's a pity, in the same way as if you work for a company that merges to create a semi-monopoly. But expecting staff to resign over that general distaste for what management is doing is remote from real life. If the company uses slave labour or endorses Nazism, sure. But disagreement over commercial policy? Nah.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
The owners of the club might own the stadium, the commercial rights and the players contracts. They dont own the fans emotions or support. Without the support and emotions the owners still own something but far, far less valuable. It is a symbiotic relationship.
Find a different billionaire wannabe football owner, or even a JP Morgan competitor, get the big supporters associations on board and one of Klopp or Gerrard as manager, and create Liverpool Kop21 FC and suddenly super league Liverpool could be a white elephant.
The “super 6” owners have a problem actually. Which is that most of the value of the club is in quickly depreciating intangibles (player contracts) and the values of those contracts falls dramatically for any player that only wishes to be sold to a non-Super team.
Meanwhile we have seen with the commonwealth stadium in Manchester and the Olympic stadium in London, that stadia in the Uk are worth sod all unless you have a top tier football club ready to play in it. If the government made life impossible for the Super 6 and they tried to up sticks to Asia, the stadia aren’t worth anything. Not without planning permission to pull them down, which the government could refuse. So ultimately they could be sold at a knock down price to phoenix clubs.
This whole thing is mutually assured destruction where some wally general has fired the missiles after one too many vodkas.
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
What are these opportunities? Simply asserting that they exist is not enough. And the SNP can never demonstrate them.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Actually asserting that they exist is enough. If the SNP do a bad job of managing an independent Scotland they can be voted out and replaced by anyone else.
It is not enough for a convincing argument, though it may be enough to fool some of the more gullible.
As for "where" the answer is anywhere. The EU represents 3% of the world's population, England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined represent under 1% of the world's population. The UK had 97% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically or rest of the world). An independent Scotland has 99% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically, the EU itself or the rest of the world).
Population size is not the most relevant factor in calculating trade flows. Size of the economy and geographic proximity are.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
It’s very simple and the fact they’ve only just found out is no excuse. What is proposed is utterly reprehensible. And if the players refuse to play this would be killed stone dead.
I don’t begrudge footballers earning big money. But with it comes responsibility. The music has stopped and their time to act has come.
By continuing to put on the shirt, they are complicit in this. They are as bad as the owners.
This seems wildly OTT to me. Sure, the scheme organises the top teams in an elitist club, and that's a pity, in the same way as if you work for a company that merges to create a semi-monopoly. But expecting staff to resign over that general distaste for what management is doing is remote from real life. If the company uses slave labour or endorses Nazism, sure. But disagreement over commercial policy? Nah.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
The owners of the club might own the stadium, the commercial rights and the players contracts. They dont own the fans emotions or support. Without the support and emotions the owners still own something but far, far less valuable. It is a symbiotic relationship.
Find a different billionaire wannabe football owner, or even a JP Morgan competitor, get the big supporters associations on board and one of Klopp or Gerrard as manager, and create Liverpool Kop21 FC and suddenly super league Liverpool could be a white elephant.
The “super 6” owners have a problem actually. Which is that most of the value of the club is in quickly depreciating intangibles (player contracts) and the values of those contracts falls dramatically for any player that only wishes to be sold to a non-Super team.
Meanwhile we have seen with the commonwealth stadium in Manchester and the Olympic stadium in London, that stadia in the Uk are worth sod all unless you have a top tier football club ready to play in it. If the government made life impossible for the Super 6 and they tried to up sticks to Asia, the stadia aren’t worth anything. Not without planning permission to pull them down, which the government could refuse. So ultimately they could be sold at a knock down price to phoenix clubs.
This whole thing is mutually assured destruction where some wally general has fired the missiles after one too many vodkas.
The PL could win it this week with an ultimatum. Back down, or we will help create six new phoenix clubs to replace you.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Amazon, Disney, or Apple could be one of a number of organisations that could offer very cheap or even free access and fatally undermine Sky and BT offers
In which case that is good for fans isn't it? I find it incredulous that Sky,UEFA and the Premier League are somehow being seen as guardian angels in this affair.
It will create a wealthy elite far removed from most fans and over time see the collapse of football as we know it
I understand the 6 clubs will be excluded from next seasons Champions league and on the present Premier League Table the following would qualify to play
Leicester 3rd West Ham 4th Everton 8th Leeds 10th
And on todays table Man City 1st, Man Utd 2nd, Chelsea 5th, Liverpool 6th, Tottenham 7th, and Arsenal 9th, would not
My point it that is is already a wealthy elite far removed from the fans - it has been for 30 years at least. I personally am not to bothered about football politics and how it organises , it is after all a fundamentally trivial pursuit to try and kick a ball into a net more times that your opponent. However I feel strongly that a government should not interfere , not least because of the triviality of it all but also it is a business that already pays way OTT to its players and agents and managers , is still operating dubious tax schemes to not pay the tax on those huge wages and is run primarily by dodgy BIg Cheese types with "global interests". Why on earth government thinks that is a cause celebre I am jus incredulous. Didint UEFA get its top brass arrested not long ago? Why on earth are they seen to be the victim in this? I actually work in sport but would never work in football . The idea it is all about the fans is ridiculous
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Amazon, Disney, or Apple could be one of a number of organisations that could offer very cheap or even free access and fatally undermine Sky and BT offers
In which case that is good for fans isn't it? I find it incredulous that Sky,UEFA and the Premier League are somehow being seen as guardian angels in this affair.
It will create a wealthy elite far removed from most fans and over time see the collapse of football as we know it
I understand the 6 clubs will be excluded from next seasons Champions league and on the present Premier League Table the following would qualify to play
Leicester 3rd West Ham 4th Everton 8th Leeds 10th
And on todays table Man City 1st, Man Utd 2nd, Chelsea 5th, Liverpool 6th, Tottenham 7th, and Arsenal 9th, would not
That's assuming that the Premier League still gets 4 slots.
If UEFA decides that if the clubs are gone their coefficient points are going with them then the Premier League won't be getting four slots to the Champions League anymore.
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
The story of this flight to Hong Kong is illustrative. All passengers had to have a clear test 72 hours pre-flight, and 14 days quarantine. 47 have tested positive, many at day 12. It sounds as if transmission is happening within quarantine hotels.
We are keeping the passengers for six hours in queues on arrival, indoors in poorly ventilated conditions, perfect covid breeding conditions.
Heathrow's answer to that seems to be less checking.
I would suggest that the answer is fewer flights.
Ha....
A number of years ago, I was in a relationship with an immigration lawyer. So, knew a few in the business as well - friends etc.
At social gatherings, sometimes, people would ask "Could we ever control immigration?"
The answer was something on the lines of - "Of course not. To do that, you would need to detain everyone whose papers aren't perfectly clear at the airports etc. Lock them up in a detention camp until it was sorted out. Stop the "summer courses" as a number of colleges. Shut down on "tourists" who aren't. Real Soviet stuff."
So what people are talking about with full border control is to take the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer and make it real.
Some people, here, speak of the creep of the state with respect to vaccine passports, and other COVID related measures....
If you are liberal on immigration, then the above scenario presents the following - it was once unthinkable, ridiculous. If implemented, how many Farages would appear to demand that it be kept?
Nonsense. They should look at how Singapore, one of the most generous countries in the world to inward immigration, still maintains an iron lock on its border.
UAE is the same - more than 90% of the population are immigrants, alongside millions of tourists annually - but they have the systems in place to control it properly. Fines are handed out at the airport for overstaying visas, all but the most minor criminal offenses result in deportation, and yes, arrivals without the right paperwork are either sent back or detained until it's sorted out.
It's possibly exaggerated in comparison to the first wave because they recorded such a small proportion of their actual cases in the first wave (serological estimates put it at 29 times as many people had it than were ever recorded).
That's not to say it's not horrific now (and we have no idea what proportion of actual cases they're picking up) - just that the comparisons are fraught.
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
What are these opportunities? Simply asserting that they exist is not enough. And the SNP can never demonstrate them.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Actually asserting that they exist is enough. If the SNP do a bad job of managing an independent Scotland they can be voted out and replaced by anyone else.
It is not enough for a convincing argument, though it may be enough to fool some of the more gullible.
As for "where" the answer is anywhere. The EU represents 3% of the world's population, England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined represent under 1% of the world's population. The UK had 97% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically or rest of the world). An independent Scotland has 99% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically, the EU itself or the rest of the world).
Population size is not the most relevant factor in calculating trade flows. Size of the economy and geographic proximity are.
Hardcore Remainer bollocks.
If that was true then why does the proximal EU even while we were members form a minority of our trade?
That argument deservedly lost the EU referendum and repeating that tired old trop would deserve to lose the Scottish referendum too. Besides if "size and geographic proximity" are the issues (spoiler: they're not) then the Scots joining the EU would give more size and keep geographic proximity.
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.
It depends on how quickly that is needed.
C02 emitted stays in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years approx.
I'd suggest that one way of building long term offsets is rebuilding peatland in areas where it will stay in place. In this country we are beginning to experiment with some of this now afaik.
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
The story of this flight to Hong Kong is illustrative. All passengers had to have a clear test 72 hours pre-flight, and 14 days quarantine. 47 have tested positive, many at day 12. It sounds as if transmission is happening within quarantine hotels.
We are keeping the passengers for six hours in queues on arrival, indoors in poorly ventilated conditions, perfect covid breeding conditions.
Heathrow's answer to that seems to be less checking.
I would suggest that the answer is fewer flights.
Ha....
A number of years ago, I was in a relationship with an immigration lawyer. So, knew a few in the business as well - friends etc.
At social gatherings, sometimes, people would ask "Could we ever control immigration?"
The answer was something on the lines of - "Of course not. To do that, you would need to detain everyone whose papers aren't perfectly clear at the airports etc. Lock them up in a detention camp until it was sorted out. Stop the "summer courses" as a number of colleges. Shut down on "tourists" who aren't. Real Soviet stuff."
So what people are talking about with full border control is to take the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer and make it real.
Some people, here, speak of the creep of the state with respect to vaccine passports, and other COVID related measures....
If you are liberal on immigration, then the above scenario presents the following - it was once unthinkable, ridiculous. If implemented, how many Farages would appear to demand that it be kept?
Nonsense. They should look at how Singapore, one of the most generous countries in the world to inward immigration, still maintains an iron lock on its border.
The point is that once "an iron lock" on the border is implemented, then it can be used.
Rather as vaccine passport (domestic) opponents fear that once such a passport is introduced, it will become a permanent feature.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Amazon, Disney, or Apple could be one of a number of organisations that could offer very cheap or even free access and fatally undermine Sky and BT offers
In which case that is good for fans isn't it? I find it incredulous that Sky,UEFA and the Premier League are somehow being seen as guardian angels in this affair.
It will create a wealthy elite far removed from most fans and over time see the collapse of football as we know it
I understand the 6 clubs will be excluded from next seasons Champions league and on the present Premier League Table the following would qualify to play
Leicester 3rd West Ham 4th Everton 8th Leeds 10th
And on todays table Man City 1st, Man Utd 2nd, Chelsea 5th, Liverpool 6th, Tottenham 7th, and Arsenal 9th, would not
That's assuming that the Premier League still gets 4 slots.
If UEFA decides that if the clubs are gone their coefficient points are going with them then the Premier League won't be getting four slots to the Champions League anymore.
I can't see UEFA doing that in the short term - better to apply the rules exactly as written...
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
The story of this flight to Hong Kong is illustrative. All passengers had to have a clear test 72 hours pre-flight, and 14 days quarantine. 47 have tested positive, many at day 12. It sounds as if transmission is happening within quarantine hotels.
We are keeping the passengers for six hours in queues on arrival, indoors in poorly ventilated conditions, perfect covid breeding conditions.
Heathrow's answer to that seems to be less checking.
I would suggest that the answer is fewer flights.
Ha....
A number of years ago, I was in a relationship with an immigration lawyer. So, knew a few in the business as well - friends etc.
At social gatherings, sometimes, people would ask "Could we ever control immigration?"
The answer was something on the lines of - "Of course not. To do that, you would need to detain everyone whose papers aren't perfectly clear at the airports etc. Lock them up in a detention camp until it was sorted out. Stop the "summer courses" as a number of colleges. Shut down on "tourists" who aren't. Real Soviet stuff."
So what people are talking about with full border control is to take the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer and make it real.
Some people, here, speak of the creep of the state with respect to vaccine passports, and other COVID related measures....
If you are liberal on immigration, then the above scenario presents the following - it was once unthinkable, ridiculous. If implemented, how many Farages would appear to demand that it be kept?
Nonsense. They should look at how Singapore, one of the most generous countries in the world to inward immigration, still maintains an iron lock on its border.
UAE is the same - more than 90% of the population are immigrants, alongside millions of tourists annually - but they have the systems in place to control it properly. Fines are handed out at the airport for overstaying visas, all but the most minor criminal offenses result in deportation, and yes, arrivals without the right paperwork are either sent back or detained until it's sorted out.
Suggesting that UAE style immigration policies should be implemented in this country *is* "the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer"
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.
It depends on how quickly that is needed.
C02 emitted stays in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years approx.
I'd suggest that one way of building long term offsets is rebuilding peatland in areas where it will stay in place. In this country we are beginning to experiment with some of this now afaik.
How good was the airborne CO2 testing regime in the time of Harold Godwineson?
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
It’s very simple and the fact they’ve only just found out is no excuse. What is proposed is utterly reprehensible. And if the players refuse to play this would be killed stone dead.
I don’t begrudge footballers earning big money. But with it comes responsibility. The music has stopped and their time to act has come.
By continuing to put on the shirt, they are complicit in this. They are as bad as the owners.
This seems wildly OTT to me. Sure, the scheme organises the top teams in an elitist club, and that's a pity, in the same way as if you work for a company that merges to create a semi-monopoly. But expecting staff to resign over that general distaste for what management is doing is remote from real life. If the company uses slave labour or endorses Nazism, sure. But disagreement over commercial policy? Nah.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
The owners of the club might own the stadium, the commercial rights and the players contracts. They dont own the fans emotions or support. Without the support and emotions the owners still own something but far, far less valuable. It is a symbiotic relationship.
Find a different billionaire wannabe football owner, or even a JP Morgan competitor, get the big supporters associations on board and one of Klopp or Gerrard as manager, and create Liverpool Kop21 FC and suddenly super league Liverpool could be a white elephant.
The “super 6” owners have a problem actually. Which is that most of the value of the club is in quickly depreciating intangibles (player contracts) and the values of those contracts falls dramatically for any player that only wishes to be sold to a non-Super team.
Meanwhile we have seen with the commonwealth stadium in Manchester and the Olympic stadium in London, that stadia in the Uk are worth sod all unless you have a top tier football club ready to play in it. If the government made life impossible for the Super 6 and they tried to up sticks to Asia, the stadia aren’t worth anything. Not without planning permission to pull them down, which the government could refuse. So ultimately they could be sold at a knock down price to phoenix clubs.
This whole thing is mutually assured destruction where some wally general has fired the missiles after one too many vodkas.
The PL could win it this week with an ultimatum. Back down, or we will help create six new phoenix clubs to replace you.
I suspect it's back down or there will be a new PL next season with 14 clubs plus 6 promoted from the Championship.
That's still only about half of the EU average per pop rate on that basis.
Though how much testing is India doing? What proportion of overall cases is that likely to be? Do other countries do the equivalent of our ONS infection prevalence tests?
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
The story of this flight to Hong Kong is illustrative. All passengers had to have a clear test 72 hours pre-flight, and 14 days quarantine. 47 have tested positive, many at day 12. It sounds as if transmission is happening within quarantine hotels.
We are keeping the passengers for six hours in queues on arrival, indoors in poorly ventilated conditions, perfect covid breeding conditions.
Heathrow's answer to that seems to be less checking.
I would suggest that the answer is fewer flights.
Ha....
A number of years ago, I was in a relationship with an immigration lawyer. So, knew a few in the business as well - friends etc.
At social gatherings, sometimes, people would ask "Could we ever control immigration?"
The answer was something on the lines of - "Of course not. To do that, you would need to detain everyone whose papers aren't perfectly clear at the airports etc. Lock them up in a detention camp until it was sorted out. Stop the "summer courses" as a number of colleges. Shut down on "tourists" who aren't. Real Soviet stuff."
So what people are talking about with full border control is to take the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer and make it real.
Some people, here, speak of the creep of the state with respect to vaccine passports, and other COVID related measures....
If you are liberal on immigration, then the above scenario presents the following - it was once unthinkable, ridiculous. If implemented, how many Farages would appear to demand that it be kept?
Nonsense. They should look at how Singapore, one of the most generous countries in the world to inward immigration, still maintains an iron lock on its border.
UAE is the same - more than 90% of the population are immigrants, alongside millions of tourists annually - but they have the systems in place to control it properly. Fines are handed out at the airport for overstaying visas, all but the most minor criminal offenses result in deportation, and yes, arrivals without the right paperwork are either sent back or detained until it's sorted out.
Suggesting that UAE style immigration policies should be implemented in this country *is* "the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer"
I assume your immigration lawyer friend is one of these who spends their time trying to stop rapists getting deported because they have a cat, or because their conviction won't go down well in their own country?
The real "dystopian nightmare" is of ID cards used for everything internally within a country, rather than robust control of people coming in and out.
Interesting reporting on the new C02 reduction target. I thought the current target was Net Zero by 2020, not -78%.
"The prime minister will say carbon emissions will be cut by 78% by 2035 - almost 15 years earlier than previously planned - which would be a world-leading position." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520
Net Zero, not zero emissions.
If emissions are reduced by 78% and offsetting of emissions is 22% (eg by planting trees or other mechanisms) then that's net zero.
Yes, that's very important to note the difference between gross zero and net zero. Gross zero would wipe out woodburners, bonfires, all animal husbandry, all heritage vehicles and possibly farting. It's impossible and implausible.
The important thing is that human activity no longer contributes to climate change. However, there will always be dogmatists - and it's worth noting Greta is one of them.
Though if you have concluded that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are already suboptimal, society probably needs to go net negative for at least a while.
If we genuinely get to net zero (i.e. the offsets aren't just accounting tricks) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere should decline substantially as the amount dissolved in the ocean increases to reach a new equilibrium.
It depends on how quickly that is needed.
C02 emitted stays in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years approx.
I'd suggest that one way of building long term offsets is rebuilding peatland in areas where it will stay in place. In this country we are beginning to experiment with some of this now afaik.
How good was the airborne CO2 testing regime in the time of Harold Godwineson?
I see no reason to doubt the models on that.
Especially as we have eg samples enclosed in ice cores going back 100s of thousands of years.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
It’s very simple and the fact they’ve only just found out is no excuse. What is proposed is utterly reprehensible. And if the players refuse to play this would be killed stone dead.
I don’t begrudge footballers earning big money. But with it comes responsibility. The music has stopped and their time to act has come.
By continuing to put on the shirt, they are complicit in this. They are as bad as the owners.
This seems wildly OTT to me. Sure, the scheme organises the top teams in an elitist club, and that's a pity, in the same way as if you work for a company that merges to create a semi-monopoly. But expecting staff to resign over that general distaste for what management is doing is remote from real life. If the company uses slave labour or endorses Nazism, sure. But disagreement over commercial policy? Nah.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
The owners of the club might own the stadium, the commercial rights and the players contracts. They dont own the fans emotions or support. Without the support and emotions the owners still own something but far, far less valuable. It is a symbiotic relationship.
Find a different billionaire wannabe football owner, or even a JP Morgan competitor, get the big supporters associations on board and one of Klopp or Gerrard as manager, and create Liverpool Kop21 FC and suddenly super league Liverpool could be a white elephant.
The “super 6” owners have a problem actually. Which is that most of the value of the club is in quickly depreciating intangibles (player contracts) and the values of those contracts falls dramatically for any player that only wishes to be sold to a non-Super team.
Meanwhile we have seen with the commonwealth stadium in Manchester and the Olympic stadium in London, that stadia in the Uk are worth sod all unless you have a top tier football club ready to play in it. If the government made life impossible for the Super 6 and they tried to up sticks to Asia, the stadia aren’t worth anything. Not without planning permission to pull them down, which the government could refuse. So ultimately they could be sold at a knock down price to phoenix clubs.
This whole thing is mutually assured destruction where some wally general has fired the missiles after one too many vodkas.
The PL could win it this week with an ultimatum. Back down, or we will help create six new phoenix clubs to replace you.
I suspect it's back down or there will be a new PL next season with 14 clubs plus 6 promoted from the Championship.
Don't forget the PL will be just about now negotiating its new TV sports rights package deal which is due to end last year. There was already a double digit decline in the price of the domestic revenues last time round. How much more do you think the PL can afford to lose if it wants to kick out the 6 clubs?
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Amazon, Disney, or Apple could be one of a number of organisations that could offer very cheap or even free access and fatally undermine Sky and BT offers
In which case that is good for fans isn't it? I find it incredulous that Sky,UEFA and the Premier League are somehow being seen as guardian angels in this affair.
It will create a wealthy elite far removed from most fans and over time see the collapse of football as we know it
I understand the 6 clubs will be excluded from next seasons Champions league and on the present Premier League Table the following would qualify to play
Leicester 3rd West Ham 4th Everton 8th Leeds 10th
And on todays table Man City 1st, Man Utd 2nd, Chelsea 5th, Liverpool 6th, Tottenham 7th, and Arsenal 9th, would not
That's assuming that the Premier League still gets 4 slots.
If UEFA decides that if the clubs are gone their coefficient points are going with them then the Premier League won't be getting four slots to the Champions League anymore.
I can't see UEFA doing that in the short term - better to apply the rules exactly as written...
Do the rules as written say what happens to coefficient points of clubs no longer participating in UEFA anymore? Or the Premier League anymore?
What happened to Rangers points when they went kaput and were replaced with a Phoenix? I honestly don't know.
If UEFA are looking for a pound of flesh they certainly could strip the Premier League of any non-Premier League coefficient points and redistributed the extra slots to the nations of clubs that stayed loyal to UEFA. I'm sure the French would be delighted to get 4 places instead of England.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Not really, they just become a rights purchaser for the ESL. Ultimately that's not a huge deal for them because they won't be spending extra money, it just gets reallocated from the EPL.
That assumes that the ESL want to deal with Sky, that the EPL, FA and UEFA will want to deal with anyone who deals with ESL, or that ESL haven't already stitched something up with Mouse TV, Amazon or have their own OTT PPV model. (with apologies for all the TLAs )
I can't see them creating their own OT PPV model - that requires expertise and it would have leaked.
Mouse TV is a strong possibility - the ESL would be a strong product for a global launch of ESPN.
Amazon probably wouldn't take the risk - the backlash could be a problem for prime and the rest of their empire. Also it's a massive sunk cost that couldn't be easily recovered in the way the Mouse could do it (separate subscription service).
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
It’s very simple and the fact they’ve only just found out is no excuse. What is proposed is utterly reprehensible. And if the players refuse to play this would be killed stone dead.
I don’t begrudge footballers earning big money. But with it comes responsibility. The music has stopped and their time to act has come.
By continuing to put on the shirt, they are complicit in this. They are as bad as the owners.
This seems wildly OTT to me. Sure, the scheme organises the top teams in an elitist club, and that's a pity, in the same way as if you work for a company that merges to create a semi-monopoly. But expecting staff to resign over that general distaste for what management is doing is remote from real life. If the company uses slave labour or endorses Nazism, sure. But disagreement over commercial policy? Nah.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
The owners of the club might own the stadium, the commercial rights and the players contracts. They dont own the fans emotions or support. Without the support and emotions the owners still own something but far, far less valuable. It is a symbiotic relationship.
Find a different billionaire wannabe football owner, or even a JP Morgan competitor, get the big supporters associations on board and one of Klopp or Gerrard as manager, and create Liverpool Kop21 FC and suddenly super league Liverpool could be a white elephant.
The “super 6” owners have a problem actually. Which is that most of the value of the club is in quickly depreciating intangibles (player contracts) and the values of those contracts falls dramatically for any player that only wishes to be sold to a non-Super team.
Meanwhile we have seen with the commonwealth stadium in Manchester and the Olympic stadium in London, that stadia in the Uk are worth sod all unless you have a top tier football club ready to play in it. If the government made life impossible for the Super 6 and they tried to up sticks to Asia, the stadia aren’t worth anything. Not without planning permission to pull them down, which the government could refuse. So ultimately they could be sold at a knock down price to phoenix clubs.
This whole thing is mutually assured destruction where some wally general has fired the missiles after one too many vodkas.
The PL could win it this week with an ultimatum. Back down, or we will help create six new phoenix clubs to replace you.
I suspect it's back down or there will be a new PL next season with 14 clubs plus 6 promoted from the Championship.
Don't forget the PL will be just about now negotiating its new TV sports rights package deal which is due to end last year. There was already a double digit decline in the price of the domestic revenues last time round. How much more do you think the PL can afford to lose if it wants to kick out the 6 clubs?
Christ, I really mistyped that - what I meant to say is the current PL rights deal ends next year. The PL will be in the stages of negotiating the new one from the start of the 2022/3 season. This could not have come at a worse time.
One thing a lot of commentators are overlooking about Sky is that ever since BT started bidding for football rights Sky have had to have a Plan B ready just in case. So it's not as though Sky have been banking on getting the same football rights forever and ever.
Good to see the first wave of ESL chat is starting to wane as other pathogens like Scotland, Covid and Brexit reassert themselves. No doubt there will be further more virulent waves in due course.
It's another major dividing line in this country: between those who care about football and those who really don't.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
It’s very simple and the fact they’ve only just found out is no excuse. What is proposed is utterly reprehensible. And if the players refuse to play this would be killed stone dead.
I don’t begrudge footballers earning big money. But with it comes responsibility. The music has stopped and their time to act has come.
By continuing to put on the shirt, they are complicit in this. They are as bad as the owners.
This seems wildly OTT to me. Sure, the scheme organises the top teams in an elitist club, and that's a pity, in the same way as if you work for a company that merges to create a semi-monopoly. But expecting staff to resign over that general distaste for what management is doing is remote from real life. If the company uses slave labour or endorses Nazism, sure. But disagreement over commercial policy? Nah.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
The owners of the club might own the stadium, the commercial rights and the players contracts. They dont own the fans emotions or support. Without the support and emotions the owners still own something but far, far less valuable. It is a symbiotic relationship.
Find a different billionaire wannabe football owner, or even a JP Morgan competitor, get the big supporters associations on board and one of Klopp or Gerrard as manager, and create Liverpool Kop21 FC and suddenly super league Liverpool could be a white elephant.
The “super 6” owners have a problem actually. Which is that most of the value of the club is in quickly depreciating intangibles (player contracts) and the values of those contracts falls dramatically for any player that only wishes to be sold to a non-Super team.
Meanwhile we have seen with the commonwealth stadium in Manchester and the Olympic stadium in London, that stadia in the Uk are worth sod all unless you have a top tier football club ready to play in it. If the government made life impossible for the Super 6 and they tried to up sticks to Asia, the stadia aren’t worth anything. Not without planning permission to pull them down, which the government could refuse. So ultimately they could be sold at a knock down price to phoenix clubs.
This whole thing is mutually assured destruction where some wally general has fired the missiles after one too many vodkas.
The PL could win it this week with an ultimatum. Back down, or we will help create six new phoenix clubs to replace you.
I suspect it's back down or there will be a new PL next season with 14 clubs plus 6 promoted from the Championship.
I think you are right that that is more likely but it is a mistake. That threat is weaker as it leaves the big six with their fans and those fans having no easy out but the super league. Structure phoenix clubs with fan representation and letting them stay local destroys the value of the super league clubs.
Well 50,000 at the cricket is one option, in a mostly unvaccinated population. It's tempting to assume its a new scary variant, and that might be the case, but I think there are probably other factors to consider.
It probably is the variant, we had people saying that the rise here in December was becuase of Christmas shoppers but it was becuase the Kent variant was much more transmissive. The reason I'm not panicking is that higher transmissibility isn't linked with vaccine dilution, I think that's also why the scientists aren't panicking. The red listing is the right decision though, we should have done it two weeks ago when we added Bangladesh and Pakistan to the red list. No need to take that risk even if it's probably not a very big one.
Our rise in December was partly the new variant (but it was not everywhere in December) and partly christmas shopping socialising after the too short lockdown. In India - for sure the variant is almost certainly playing a part (maybe the biggest part) but I also think the idea that India was somehow over the pandemic (seemingly widespread view about 6 weeks ago, with talk of herd immunity among a younger population etc) has contributed. i guess the self lockdown will be happening there too now.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Not really, they just become a rights purchaser for the ESL. Ultimately that's not a huge deal for them because they won't be spending extra money, it just gets reallocated from the EPL.
That assumes that the ESL want to deal with Sky, that the EPL, FA and UEFA will want to deal with anyone who deals with ESL, or that ESL haven't already stitched something up with Mouse TV, Amazon or have their own OTT PPV model. (with apologies for all the TLAs )
I can't see them creating their own OT PPV model - that requires expertise and it would have leaked.
Mouse TV is a strong possibility - the ESL would be a strong product for a global launch of ESPN.
I would have Amazon ahead of Disney but, yes, Disney a strong possibility
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
The story of this flight to Hong Kong is illustrative. All passengers had to have a clear test 72 hours pre-flight, and 14 days quarantine. 47 have tested positive, many at day 12. It sounds as if transmission is happening within quarantine hotels.
We are keeping the passengers for six hours in queues on arrival, indoors in poorly ventilated conditions, perfect covid breeding conditions.
Heathrow's answer to that seems to be less checking.
I would suggest that the answer is fewer flights.
Ha....
A number of years ago, I was in a relationship with an immigration lawyer. So, knew a few in the business as well - friends etc.
At social gatherings, sometimes, people would ask "Could we ever control immigration?"
The answer was something on the lines of - "Of course not. To do that, you would need to detain everyone whose papers aren't perfectly clear at the airports etc. Lock them up in a detention camp until it was sorted out. Stop the "summer courses" as a number of colleges. Shut down on "tourists" who aren't. Real Soviet stuff."
So what people are talking about with full border control is to take the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer and make it real.
Some people, here, speak of the creep of the state with respect to vaccine passports, and other COVID related measures....
If you are liberal on immigration, then the above scenario presents the following - it was once unthinkable, ridiculous. If implemented, how many Farages would appear to demand that it be kept?
Nonsense. They should look at how Singapore, one of the most generous countries in the world to inward immigration, still maintains an iron lock on its border.
UAE is the same - more than 90% of the population are immigrants, alongside millions of tourists annually - but they have the systems in place to control it properly. Fines are handed out at the airport for overstaying visas, all but the most minor criminal offenses result in deportation, and yes, arrivals without the right paperwork are either sent back or detained until it's sorted out.
Suggesting that UAE style immigration policies should be implemented in this country *is* "the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer"
Switzerland also manages to control immigration without stopping visitors - Robert Smithson did a typically engaging and informative ten minute video on this subject - well worth a quick look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG4NCHuvCC4
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Not really, they just become a rights purchaser for the ESL. Ultimately that's not a huge deal for them because they won't be spending extra money, it just gets reallocated from the EPL.
That assumes that the ESL want to deal with Sky, that the EPL, FA and UEFA will want to deal with anyone who deals with ESL, or that ESL haven't already stitched something up with Mouse TV, Amazon or have their own OTT PPV model. (with apologies for all the TLAs )
I can't see them creating their own OT PPV model - that requires expertise and it would have leaked.
Mouse TV is a strong possibility - the ESL would be a strong product for a global launch of ESPN.
I would have Amazon ahead of Disney but, yes, Disney a strong possibility
and I wouldn't for the reasons I've posted in my edit - the backlash could be a problem for prime and the rest of their empire. Also it's a massive sunk cost that couldn't be easily recovered in the way the Mouse could do it (separate subscription service).
I agree that Scottish Independence is like Brexit - in the sense they are both perfectly, 100% viable if that is what the voters choose.
It isn't a "myth" that the UK can make up any disruption that Brexit causes with Europe with trade with the rest of the world. Indeed that's already the case now.
While its certainly true that Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids, since Brexit is not the bad thing that Nabavi has convinced himself it is, that's not a problem for Scotland.
Yes Scotland is more tightly integrated with the UK today. That is true. Yes, Scottish Independence will cause more disruption than Brexit did, that is also true. But the Scots have not just more to lose but more to gain in controlling their own destiny.
The UK could replace any disruption with the EU either domestically or with the approximately 7.2 billion people around the globe who aren't in the EU. Scotland can replace any disruption with the rest of the UK either domestically, or with the same 7.2 billion, or with the 440 million people of the EU.
Scottish Independence is like Brexit on steroids yes: More risk, but also more opportunities.
Don't be blinded to the opportunities of both.
This is simply wrong. Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of its GDP than the UK's trade with the EU-27 - about three times larger, according to some estimates. It is therefore much more challenging for Scotland to replace its loss of trade with England with trade with the rest of the world than it was for the UK since last year (and that is difficult enough). It is likely to be impossible for decades and perhaps ever.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Its not wrong.
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
What are these opportunities? Simply asserting that they exist is not enough. And the SNP can never demonstrate them.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Actually asserting that they exist is enough. If the SNP do a bad job of managing an independent Scotland they can be voted out and replaced by anyone else.
It is not enough for a convincing argument, though it may be enough to fool some of the more gullible.
As for "where" the answer is anywhere. The EU represents 3% of the world's population, England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined represent under 1% of the world's population. The UK had 97% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically or rest of the world). An independent Scotland has 99% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically, the EU itself or the rest of the world).
Population size is not the most relevant factor in calculating trade flows. Size of the economy and geographic proximity are.
Hardcore Remainer bollocks.
If that was true then why does the proximal EU even while we were members form a minority of our trade?
That argument deservedly lost the EU referendum and repeating that tired old trop would deserve to lose the Scottish referendum too. Besides if "size and geographic proximity" are the issues (spoiler: they're not) then the Scots joining the EU would give more size and keep geographic proximity.
The example is an unfortunate one for your case, since the EU-27, with 6% of the world's population, make up about 45% of our foreign trade. Just read Mankiw for the classic list of factors determining what cause trading patterns.
Thousands of people could fly from India to England before it is added to the travel “red list” from Friday, amid growing criticism that the government acted too slowly to restrict the spread of a variant which may be more resistant to vaccines.
In a move announced hours after Boris Johnson bowed to pressure to cancel a key trip to India to boost economic ties, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said most travel from the country would be banned from 4am on Friday. Only British citizens and residents will be allowed in, and all must quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.
There are 16 direct flights from India to the UK scheduled to land before the deadline and many more indirect ones.
The story of this flight to Hong Kong is illustrative. All passengers had to have a clear test 72 hours pre-flight, and 14 days quarantine. 47 have tested positive, many at day 12. It sounds as if transmission is happening within quarantine hotels.
We are keeping the passengers for six hours in queues on arrival, indoors in poorly ventilated conditions, perfect covid breeding conditions.
Heathrow's answer to that seems to be less checking.
I would suggest that the answer is fewer flights.
Ha....
A number of years ago, I was in a relationship with an immigration lawyer. So, knew a few in the business as well - friends etc.
At social gatherings, sometimes, people would ask "Could we ever control immigration?"
The answer was something on the lines of - "Of course not. To do that, you would need to detain everyone whose papers aren't perfectly clear at the airports etc. Lock them up in a detention camp until it was sorted out. Stop the "summer courses" as a number of colleges. Shut down on "tourists" who aren't. Real Soviet stuff."
So what people are talking about with full border control is to take the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer and make it real.
Some people, here, speak of the creep of the state with respect to vaccine passports, and other COVID related measures....
If you are liberal on immigration, then the above scenario presents the following - it was once unthinkable, ridiculous. If implemented, how many Farages would appear to demand that it be kept?
Nonsense. They should look at how Singapore, one of the most generous countries in the world to inward immigration, still maintains an iron lock on its border.
UAE is the same - more than 90% of the population are immigrants, alongside millions of tourists annually - but they have the systems in place to control it properly. Fines are handed out at the airport for overstaying visas, all but the most minor criminal offenses result in deportation, and yes, arrivals without the right paperwork are either sent back or detained until it's sorted out.
Suggesting that UAE style immigration policies should be implemented in this country *is* "the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer"
I assume your immigration lawyer friend is one of these who spends their time trying to stop rapists getting deported because they have a cat, or because their conviction won't go down well in their own country?
The real "dystopian nightmare" is of ID cards used for everything internally within a country, rather than robust control of people coming in and out.
No, she wasn't.
In fact, like many Ghanian middle class people, her attitude to law and order would make many here wince. Absolutely in favour of the death penalty, for example. For the rest, lock them up forever. Her suggestion to er... deal with the Taliban after 9/11 had the virtue of simplicity.
I'm not sure you appreciate the scale of such a system and what it would entail.
Mr. Thompson, I fail to see the rationale in UEFA punishing English clubs that didn't join the breakaway league.
I don't think UEFA would see it that way. They'd see it as rewarding the associations (like the French) that stayed loyal.
Besides the points belong to the clubs and the clubs will be gone. The association coefficients are based on their clubs coefficient points. The Premier League would retain the coefficient points that have been earnt by Leicester etc - but that's not that many points and certainly not enough to justify 4 slots ahead of the French.
Klopp’s comments about Neville were frankly a disgrace.
No Jurgen made good points. It's not fair to have a go at the players and manager in a situation like this and generating more heat is not what's needed. His comments about 'Never Walk Alone' are entirely appropriate. It's not for a rentagob like Neville to pitch in on something so sacred to Liverpool, for whom he never played.
Spot on by Klopp.
I don't expect you to listen. You seem to have gone all ranty and acronymy. But when you calm down you might come to understand Jurgen's points.
Neville has been equally - if not more - critical of United.
Liverpool like to think they are special. YNWA is part of that. Klopp is on the Left of politics. And unfortunately for him, his team were playing last night.
I hope the rest of the scum get equally severe treatment in the coming days.
Klopp said about as much as he could, while still avoiding tea and biscuits with the chairman this morning.
The managers and players learned about this in the media, so determined were the chairmen to avoid their plans leaking.
I like Klopp. I think he's a decent guy and he's been blinded-sided by this (apparently). He hasn't had a chance to process this properly so I give him a bit of a pass for now. However ... and it's a big however, if he's as decent and principled as we think he his then he could choose to make a stand on this. He could threaten to resign and call the owner's bluff. It's not like he needs the money - in fact, what a glorious statement that would be given this all about more money for the elite clubs.
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
Gary Neville has indeed been very good - but he's in a position where he has nothing to lose, employed as he is by Sky. Those active in the game have to remain slightly more circumspect - I think Klopp hates the idea his chairman has foisted upon the club, but he isn't going to mouth off about his own boss live on TV.
Its worth remembering of course that Sky are not a neutral party in this.
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Not really, they just become a rights purchaser for the ESL. Ultimately that's not a huge deal for them because they won't be spending extra money, it just gets reallocated from the EPL.
That assumes that the ESL want to deal with Sky, that the EPL, FA and UEFA will want to deal with anyone who deals with ESL, or that ESL haven't already stitched something up with Mouse TV, Amazon or have their own OTT PPV model. (with apologies for all the TLAs )
I can't see them creating their own OT PPV model - that requires expertise and it would have leaked.
Mouse TV is a strong possibility - the ESL would be a strong product for a global launch of ESPN.
I would have Amazon ahead of Disney but, yes, Disney a strong possibility
and I wouldn't for the reasons I've posted in my edit - the backlash could be a problem for prime and the rest of their empire. Also it's a massive sunk cost that couldn't be easily recovered in the way the Mouse could do it (separate subscription service).
Amazon has been buying up sports rights aggressively over the past 6 months on a global basis - NFL, Indian cricket etc. There is obviously a coordinated approach going on here. Funnily enough, DIsney is the one more potentially impacted by any backlash because consumers could just cancel their Disney+ subscription with little disruption. If you cancel Amazon Prime, you lose a whole load of other benefits - it is a lot more disruptive for the consumer. Plus there is a decent chance Amazon picks up more subs than it loses.
Comments
But he's wrong about Gary Neville, who I think has been outstanding as a spokesperson on this in the past 24 hours. Liverpool love to play the victim but they are hypocrites on this. The YNWA anthem is the epitome of standing together in the face of adversity. If Liverpool were true to their anthem they would lend it to the whole of football as a rallying call until this abomination is killed.
But it looks to me like Liverpool is looking after no1 and Klopp, by his equivocation, doesn't want to make a stand (at least not yet ... we'll see what he chooses to do).
I read his post as a warning - don't rely on appealing just to the head if you want to prevent Indy.
Indra Travel chairman Suresh Kumar said: “People are concerned and desperate to get back and in a frenzy. A normal £400 economy seat from Delhi is [now] anything up to £2,000. Even if you go for business or first class, there are not many around. They are over £3,000."
There are reportedly 42 flights due to come to the UK over the coming week and a total of 10,965 passengers if they are all full.
Large football clubs are first and foremost businesses. It suits them to have supporters feel they're part of a family and that it matters more than profits to the management. It's not been true for a very long time (does anyone really think that a foreign owner spends a microsecond thinking about the joy of supporters, except in terms of their continued support?), any more than Tesco really cares if you're happy so long as you keep buying their goods. It's a delusion to think otherwise, and to expect companies or their employees to behave as if you were indeed their beloved nephew. You can transfer your custom to a smaller enterprise if you like, but you'll find that they too are primarily interested in you as a customer.
I feel a bit mean in saying this, like telling a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But at some level, haven't we all known it's true?
And when an irresistible force meets an immovable object, the first thing that happens is an unpleasant nothing, which is where we are now. Then, at some fairly unpredictable point, something really bad suddenly happens.
That was so kind and brave of him, so very much appreciated.
What are the great economic opportunities that Scotland has from controlling its own destiny? I simply don't see them. They will survive, of course, but economically independence is likely to be an exercise in damage mitigation rather than a climb to prosperity. There might be some gain from managing their macroeconomic policy in their own interests, but they would deprive themselves of this by joining the EU.
Which brings us neatly to the currency question. Scotland certainly could not replace even a small fraction of UK trade with EU trade without joining the EU (thereby sacrifcing any RoW gains), and that means joining the Euro. Scotland is part of an optimal currency area with the rest of the UK, but I don't think anyone has ever said it even comes close to being one with the euro area. It would have to meet the economically illiterate convergence criteria, starting from a disastrous fiscal position. Then it would be a deficit country in a system rigged to favour (German) creditors. How did that work out for Greece and Spain?
The SNP usually counter arguments based on undergraduate level economics like the above with vague assertions about Ireland or Denmark. But that simply doesn't make sense, because those countries are much more productive than Scotland, but the SNP's policies (a larger state, more intervention in markets) would actually make Scotland much less productive than now, rather than more, and the SNP has no favourable supply side policies to counterbalance those.
So while the economic arguments may be similar between Brexit and Scexit, the balance of arguments is totally different. Choosing to leave the UK really will be Scotland's heart beating its head.
Now I smugly feel the same about Scexit. I can't the upside. I can recognise the xenophobic arguments (Up yours delors / Boris is a bawbag) but I don't see how they make a coherent argument or vision. Not that I will get a vote but I would like an uninterrupted supply of porridge oats, raspberries and whisky!
If Scotland left the UK now it would certainly mean border posts at Berwick and Scotland would have to choose between losing some trade to the EU or losing some of the even larger share of its trade that is done with the rest of the UK
https://twitter.com/c4ciaran/status/1384208872789876744?s=21
A number of years ago, I was in a relationship with an immigration lawyer. So, knew a few in the business as well - friends etc.
At social gatherings, sometimes, people would ask "Could we ever control immigration?"
The answer was something on the lines of - "Of course not. To do that, you would need to detain everyone whose papers aren't perfectly clear at the airports etc. Lock them up in a detention camp until it was sorted out. Stop the "summer courses" as a number of colleges. Shut down on "tourists" who aren't. Real Soviet stuff."
So what people are talking about with full border control is to take the dystopian nightmare day dream of a middle-of-the-road immigration lawyer and make it real.
Some people, here, speak of the creep of the state with respect to vaccine passports, and other COVID related measures....
If you are liberal on immigration, then the above scenario presents the following - it was once unthinkable, ridiculous. If implemented, how many Farages would appear to demand that it be kept?
This however seems different - it's twice what it was and it's not monsoon season which would be a plausible reason for the change (everyone crammed inside).
I acknowledged that Scotland's trade with England is much larger as a share of GDP - so that's not a contradiction.
It is not "difficult enough" for the UK to be able to cope with Brexit, the UK has done it already. Brexit is a non-event macroeconomically.
Would Scotland have more disruption? Yes. But Scotland also has potentially more partners to recover any disruption from, they don't have the same "rest of the world" that the UK does. The UK's rest of the world is the rest of the world excluding the EU - Scotland's rest of the world is the rest of the world including the EU.
That you don't see opportunities for Scots controlling their own destiny is fine, others do. Just as Nabavi couldn't see opportunities for Brits controlling their own destiny, but others do and did.
Also the phenomenon that RCS mentioned - self lock down. In this case, everyone in India thought it was over, that it had really passed India by... so they, possibly, reduce personal precautions.
Leave offered everyone their personal unicorn
Remain offered (at best) more of the same and a lot of people didn't like the same.
We would do better creating meaningful, constitutionally protected local government.
It is absolutely impossible to take PB Scotch Expert analysis seriously when this absolutely basic point is got wrong in post after post after post.
They were asked the question, their answer was recorded and included in the national total UK wide. The result was that after all votes were counted Leave won. There's nothing contemptous or undemocratic about that.
If you don't want your votes counted with the votes of others then you need to be truly independent, which means not being in the EU anyway. Otherwise the same thing can happen in the EU, they could vote one way and QMV sends the result the other way - do you consider that to be "democratic contempt"?
Its a choice and either option is valid.
If the Welsh wish to control their own destiny, what is wrong with that?
Yes there are huge opportunities. Small states can work very successfully.
Some "trauma".
Casino is wrong about the difference between net and gross zero. The crucial factor is not releasing any more fossil carbon. Almost all our offsets are less permanent ways of removing carbon from the carbon cycle.
Other countries are "unclean" when it comes to the virus. That's not horrible, that's a matter of fact.
https://twitter.com/behindisis/status/1383479926473433089?s=21
As this has been negotiated without Sky it implies someone else could be in the frame for the broadcasting rights. This could wipe out the biggest USP of Sky Sports.
Sky have a vested interest in the boat not being rocked.
Find a different billionaire wannabe football owner, or even a JP Morgan competitor, get the big supporters associations on board and one of Klopp or Gerrard as manager, and create Liverpool Kop21 FC and suddenly super league Liverpool could be a white elephant.
And where do all the gains from trade with the RoW come from if Scotland joins the single market? And if the SNP tightens the state's strangehold on the economy?
Personally I dont see immigration as a national issue (after all I was told at a young age and believe it that there is no difference in people based on their country or skin and hence no need for any major cultural shift or concession ) but an individual issue. If you think about it it is outrageous that a human being born to Earth cannot freely go where they like on that Earth.
I need to drill into the numbers from the CCC to see how the targets add up, but -78% by 2035 is only -5% more in toto off than the -3% per annum established run rate to get -68% by 2030.
Given that the UK is ahead of the Euro game on the current performance, one political bit is perhaps to preempt the ECCA 2022 in May (http://www.jpi-climate.eu/ecca2021) which Brussels might have planned to use to pre-marginalise the Glasgow Conference later this year having made a dog's breakfast of vaccines.
https://twitter.com/LUFC/status/1384249148732444679
"So, are there any honest Scottish Nationalists prepared to level with the Scottish people on the fact that Brexit, far from being an additional reason to leave the UK, is actually a major barrier to independence.
I'm not a Scottish Nationalist but I am honest and can answer this. It's both. Brexit demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt why Scotland should leave but at the same time makes it considerably harder to do so. We are therefore heading (because of Brexit) towards the messiest possible Scottish scenario.
And Brexit will be laughing about this. Just luvin' it. That's the sort of thing that Brexit is.
As for "where" the answer is anywhere. The EU represents 3% of the world's population, England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined represent under 1% of the world's population. The UK had 97% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically or rest of the world). An independent Scotland has 99% of the world's population to replace any displaced trade with (domestically, the EU itself or the rest of the world).
I agree that the SNP tightening the state's stranglehold on the economy is a terrible idea - but they've done that already in the UK. Independently people have the possibility of realising they need to release the stranglehold, become dynamic like Ireland etc and vote for parties willing to reform the economy in the way it needs to go.
That's how democracy works.
Anyway, the key issue being fiercely fought over is whether we have sport with free competition, or entertainment between brands, not whether it is broadcast by Sky or who organises it.
That's like the insanity of the EU insisting that rights to the Premier League must be split up in order to "increase competition", however individual fixtures are still now only with Sky or BT. It hasn't increased competition or consumer choice, its just meant that if you as a consumer want to watch both you need to pay both Sky and BT now. The cost of buying both Sky and BT is more than what it was to get just Sky alone.
The EU f***ed fans over forcing a split on rights (but allowing a monopoly on fixtures to continue). The same would happen to Sky here, they'd be f***ed over for the same reason fans were - people would want and have to pay for both.
That's not to say it's not horrific now (and we have no idea what proportion of actual cases they're picking up) - just that the comparisons are fraught.
I understand the 6 clubs will be excluded from next seasons Champions league and on the present Premier League Table the following would qualify to play
Leicester 3rd
West Ham 4th
Everton 8th
Leeds 10th
And on todays table Man City 1st, Man Utd 2nd, Chelsea 5th, Liverpool 6th, Tottenham 7th, and Arsenal 9th, would not
Meanwhile we have seen with the commonwealth stadium in Manchester and the Olympic stadium in London, that stadia in the Uk are worth sod all unless you have a top tier football club ready to play in it. If the government made life impossible for the Super 6 and they tried to up sticks to Asia, the stadia aren’t worth anything. Not without planning permission to pull them down, which the government could refuse. So ultimately they could be sold at a knock down price to phoenix clubs.
This whole thing is mutually assured destruction where some wally general has fired the missiles after one too many vodkas.
I actually work in sport but would never work in football . The idea it is all about the fans is ridiculous
If UEFA decides that if the clubs are gone their coefficient points are going with them then the Premier League won't be getting four slots to the Champions League anymore.
If that was true then why does the proximal EU even while we were members form a minority of our trade?
That argument deservedly lost the EU referendum and repeating that tired old trop would deserve to lose the Scottish referendum too. Besides if "size and geographic proximity" are the issues (spoiler: they're not) then the Scots joining the EU would give more size and keep geographic proximity.
C02 emitted stays in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years approx.
I'd suggest that one way of building long term offsets is rebuilding peatland in areas where it will stay in place. In this country we are beginning to experiment with some of this now afaik.
Rather as vaccine passport (domestic) opponents fear that once such a passport is introduced, it will become a permanent feature.
Do other countries do the equivalent of our ONS infection prevalence tests?
The real "dystopian nightmare" is of ID cards used for everything internally within a country, rather than robust control of people coming in and out.
Especially as we have eg samples enclosed in ice cores going back 100s of thousands of years.
What happened to Rangers points when they went kaput and were replaced with a Phoenix? I honestly don't know.
If UEFA are looking for a pound of flesh they certainly could strip the Premier League of any non-Premier League coefficient points and redistributed the extra slots to the nations of clubs that stayed loyal to UEFA. I'm sure the French would be delighted to get 4 places instead of England.
Mouse TV is a strong possibility - the ESL would be a strong product for a global launch of ESPN.
Amazon probably wouldn't take the risk - the backlash could be a problem for prime and the rest of their empire. Also it's a massive sunk cost that couldn't be easily recovered in the way the Mouse could do it (separate subscription service).
It's another major dividing line in this country: between those who care about football and those who really don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG4NCHuvCC4
In fact, like many Ghanian middle class people, her attitude to law and order would make many here wince. Absolutely in favour of the death penalty, for example. For the rest, lock them up forever. Her suggestion to er... deal with the Taliban after 9/11 had the virtue of simplicity.
I'm not sure you appreciate the scale of such a system and what it would entail.
Besides the points belong to the clubs and the clubs will be gone. The association coefficients are based on their clubs coefficient points. The Premier League would retain the coefficient points that have been earnt by Leicester etc - but that's not that many points and certainly not enough to justify 4 slots ahead of the French.